Youth Opportunity Grants
Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but Labor Needs to Make Data Available Gao ID: GAO-06-53 December 9, 2005The Youth Opportunity Grant program (YO) represented an innovative approach to improving education and employment opportunities for at-risk youth by targeting resources in high poverty areas and incorporating strategies that experts have identified as effective for serving this population. The Department of Labor (the Department) awarded 36 grants in 2000, and the program continued for 5 years. The Department had used a similar approach on a smaller scale in previous programs, but little information is available on the impact of these other programs. In order to understand what can be learned from the Youth Opportunity Grant program, GAO examined the grantees' implementation of the program, challenges they faced, and what is known about the program's outcomes and impact. To view selected results from GAO's Web-based survey of the Program Directors, go to GAO-06-56SP (http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-56SP).
Grantees used a variety of approaches to build the infrastructure of the YO program, provide services to at-risk youth, and conduct outreach efforts. While grantees set up centers and trained core staff to deliver services, they differed somewhat in their approaches, depending on circumstances within their communities. In addition, grantees employed a combination of strategies to provide youth services, including collaborating with other providers and inventing unique programming. To recruit this hard-to-serve target population, grantees used a range of techniques, from partnering with juvenile justice agencies, to combing malls for eligible youth. Fast program start up, conditions in their communities, and the characteristics and needs of the youth challenged the grantees;however they used features of the program design to address some of these difficulties. Many grantees struggled to set up the program, especially within the Department's time frame. In addition, grantees felt encumbered by the drugs, violence, and a lack of jobs in their communities as well as the obstacles facing their clients, such as low academic achievement and lack of family support. Grantees used the discretion and other components built into the program design to address many of these challenges. For example, in response to safety concerns, an urban grantee elected to provide transportation for youth attending evening events. However, grantees and others said more planning time would have been beneficial. Grantees and others reported that the youth and their communities made progress toward the YO program goals, but the program's impact is still under study. Grantees reported that they had enrolled about 91,000 youth nationwide, many of whom completed high school, entered college, or found employment after enrolling in the program. In addition, grantees and others said that the grants had benefited their communities. However, without an impact analysis, it is not known whether these events would have occurred in the absence of the program. The Department contracted for a $24 million evaluation of the program that included plans for an impact analysis; however, agency officials are unsure if the analysis will be completed.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-53, Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but Labor Needs to Make Data Available
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-53
entitled 'Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned from
Program, but Labor Needs to Make Data Available' which was released on
December 9, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
Report to Congressional Requester:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
December 2005:
Youth Opportunity Grants:
Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but Labor Needs to Make Data
Available:
GAO-06-53:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-53, a report to congressional requester:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Youth Opportunity Grant program (YO) represented an innovative
approach to improving education and employment opportunities for at-
risk youth by targeting resources in high poverty areas and
incorporating strategies that experts have identified as effective for
serving this population. The Department of Labor (the Department)
awarded 36 grants in 2000, and the program continued for 5 years. The
Department had used a similar approach on a smaller scale in previous
programs, but little information is available on the impact of these
other programs. In order to understand what can be learned from the
Youth Opportunity Grant program, GAO examined the grantees‘
implementation of the program, challenges they faced, and what is known
about the program‘s outcomes and impact. To view selected results from
GAO‘s Web-based survey of the Program Directors, go to GAO-06-56SP.
What GAO Found:
Grantees used a variety of approaches to build the infrastructure of
the YO program, provide services to at-risk youth, and conduct outreach
efforts. While grantees set up centers and trained core staff to
deliver services, they differed somewhat in their approaches, depending
on circumstances within their communities. In addition, grantees
employed a combination of strategies to provide youth services,
including collaborating with other providers and inventing unique
programming. To recruit this hard-to-serve target population, grantees
used a range of techniques, from partnering with juvenile justice
agencies, to combing malls for eligible youth.
Fast program start up, conditions in their communities, and the
characteristics and needs of the youth challenged the grantees; however
they used features of the program design to address some of these
difficulties. Many grantees struggled to set up the program, especially
within the Department‘s time frame. In addition, grantees felt
encumbered by the drugs, violence, and a lack of jobs in their
communities as well as the obstacles facing their clients, such as low
academic achievement and lack of family support. Grantees used the
discretion and other components built into the program design to
address many of these challenges. For example, in response to safety
concerns, an urban grantee elected to provide transportation for youth
attending evening events. However, grantees and others said more
planning time would have been beneficial.
Grantees and others reported that the youth and their communities made
progress toward the YO program goals, but the program‘s impact is still
under study. Grantees reported that they had enrolled about 91,000
youth nationwide, many of whom completed high school, entered college,
or found employment after enrolling in the program. In addition,
grantees and others said that the grants had benefited their
communities. However, without an impact analysis, it is not known
whether these events would have occurred in the absence of the program.
The Department contracted for a $24 million evaluation of the program
that included plans for an impact analysis; however, agency officials
are unsure if the analysis will be completed.
Manchester Point Arena Youth Opportunity Center, Calif.:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Labor take the actions necessary
to complete the impact analysis of the Youth Opportunity Grant program
and release the data and all related research reports from the
program‘s evaluation. In comments on GAO‘s draft report, the Department
agreed with GAO‘s recommendation to complete the impact analysis and
publish all related reports.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-53.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact David Bellis at (415) 904-
2272 or bellisd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Grantees Carried Out the Program Using a Variety of Approaches:
Grantees Used Program Design to Address Major Challenges, but Found
Start-up Time to be Short:
Grantees and Others Reported That Participants and Their Communities
Made Progress, but the Program's Impact Is Still under Study:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Table:
Table 1: YO Program Areas, Corresponding Youth Activities, and Examples
of Implementation:
Figures:
Figure 1: Location of Youth Opportunity Grantees:
Figure 2: Key Components of Youth Opportunity Grant Program:
Figure 3: Photos of YO Centers:
Figure 4: Number of Youth Who Signed up for, Participated in, and
Achieved at Least One Educational or Employment Goal of the Program:
Abbreviations:
CIMC: California Indian Manpower Consortium:
ISY: In-school youth:
MIS: Management information system:
OIG: Office of Inspector General:
OSY: Out-of-school youth:
YO: Youth Opportunity Grants:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 9, 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Honorable Arlen Specter:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and
Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
More than 5 million youth between the ages of 16 and 24 were jobless
and out of school in 2001, according to a recent study,[Footnote 1] and
young people living in high poverty areas face particularly difficult
barriers to employment and education. A variety of factors make this
population hard to serve, including low levels of academic attainment,
limited work experience, and a scarcity of jobs in their communities.
Much remains to be learned about the best ways to help these youth
connect with education and employment opportunities. A 2003 report by
the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth concluded that a
lack of rigorously collected program evaluation data has limited the
potential for gaining insight into the strategies that are most
effective for serving these youth.
One program that explored innovative strategies was the Youth
Opportunity Grant program, authorized under the Workforce Investment
Act of 1998.[Footnote 2] This was a 5-year, $1 billion program aimed at
increasing the educational attainment and long-term employment of youth
residing in impoverished areas. The program was the successor to
several prior demonstration programs that were based on a similar
model. Through the Youth Opportunity Grants awarded under the program,
the Department of Labor targeted funds to 36 localities with high
poverty rates and employed a comprehensive approach for attempting to
improve opportunities for at-risk youth living in these communities.
All 14 to 21 year-olds residing in the target areas, regardless of
income, were eligible to receive services, and once enrolled, could
usually remain in the program as long as needed. The program design
included many of the strategies experts have suggested are effective in
serving at-risk youth, including providing a safe place for young
people to go, assigning a key adult to monitor their progress, and
offering a wide array of services. The program also provided a system
for grantees to report performance information and included plans for
an extensive evaluation study. The program began in 2000 and was funded
for 5 years.
In order to understand what can be learned from the Youth Opportunity
Grant program, you asked us to examine the following: (1) How did
grantees implement the Youth Opportunity Grant program? (2) What
challenges did they face, and what can be learned from their
experiences in addressing them? (3) What is known about the outcomes
and impact of this program, both on the participants and on their
communities?
To answer these questions, we surveyed the 36 Youth Opportunity Grant
program directors, visited 7 grantees, and analyzed program data
provided by the Department of Labor. All of the program directors
completed the survey, which we conducted between March and May
2005.[Footnote 3] We conducted five in-depth site visits to grantees,
during which we interviewed program administrators, staff, youth, and
other members of the community. We also toured youth opportunity
centers, in-school facilities, and observed program activities. We
selected these five sites according to the proportionate representation
of urban, rural, and Native American grantees as well as for their
geographic distribution. We briefly visited two additional grantees
while pretesting the survey, and at these sites, we toured grantees'
centers and spoke with program administrators, staff, and youth. In
addition, we reviewed agency documents and interviewed agency officials
and relevant experts. To address the third question regarding outcomes
and impact, we also analyzed electronic data the Department of Labor
collected from the grantees in a management information system
developed specifically for the program.
We conducted our work from September 2004 through November 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Grantees carried out the Youth Opportunity Grant program--which was
designed in part to enhance the local infrastructure of youth services-
-in a variety of ways. As outlined in the program design, grantees set
up centers in the target areas that served as focal points for the
program and housed a core staff of trained youth workers who provided
case management and individualized services to participants. Because
the target areas varied in size, some grantees had 1 center while
other, more geographically-dispersed grantees had as many as 40.
Grantees also offered participants a range of youth services in the
areas of education, occupational training, leadership development, and
support services. Youth could participate in an array of activities in
these areas, from college tours and subsidized employment to community
service projects and health-related workshops. Grantees collaborated
with other organizations to deliver some of these services, such as
arranging for youth to attend GED preparation classes at a local
agency. In many cases, grantees also developed unique programming to
fill gaps in available services. One grantee started a charter high
school, the only one of its kind in that city. All of the grantees
tracked the activities of participants and transmitted the information
to a reporting system administered by the Department of Labor. In
addition, many grantees used innovative methods to recruit
participants, such as placing outreach staff in malls and providing
work-related incentives for youth to participate.
Grantees faced challenges related to program start-up, conditions in
their communities, and meeting the service needs of the youth; however,
certain features of the program design such as local discretion and
individualized services, helped grantees address these challenges. Most
of the grantees reported that it was difficult to set up a center
within the 7 months the Department of Labor expected the programs to be
operational and grantees said that this quick start-up had an adverse
effect on retaining participants. As a consequence, grantees, experts,
and agency officials said that programs could have benefited from
additional time to plan. In addition, although most grantees found it
difficult to establish an information-reporting system, some of them
ultimately found it useful for their own program management purposes.
Most grantees reported that existing conditions in their communities
were problems--such as violence, drugs, and lack of jobs--but grantees
used the discretion afforded to them by the program to devise a range
of approaches to address the problems. For example, a rural grantee
responded to limited employment opportunities in its area by
subsidizing positions with local businesses and providing the youth
transportation to jobs in other locales. Additionally, grantees told us
that the obstacles facing their clients--such as low academic
achievement, health problems, and lack of family support--made it
difficult for the youth to move forward, but found aspects of the
program's design--such as case management and individualized services-
-useful in helping the youth deal with these barriers. For example, one
grantee trained case managers to conduct mental health assessments of
the youth and, when deemed appropriate, arranged for a professional
counselor to provide therapy at the center.
Grantees and others reported that the participants and their
communities made progress toward the education and employment goals of
the program; however, a formal assessment of the program's impact is
still under study. Data provided by the grantees show that the Youth
Opportunity Grant program enrolled about 91,000 youth nationwide, a
number of whom subsequently completed high school, entered college, or
found employment. In addition, grantees and others told us that the
program benefited their communities. However, in the absence of a
systematic impact analysis, it is not known whether the events they
cited would have occurred without the program. The Department of Labor
contracted for a $24 million evaluation of the program that included
plans for an impact analysis. However, agency officials are unsure if
the impact analysis will be completed as originally planned due to the
Department's allocations being less than expected.
In order to learn from this innovative program and continue to improve
efforts to serve at-risk youth, we recommend the Secretary of Labor
take the actions necessary to complete the impact analysis of the Youth
Opportunity Grant program and release the impact data and all related
research reports from the program's evaluation. In comments on GAO's
draft report, the Department of Labor agreed with our recommendation
and indicated that it plans to complete the impact analysis and publish
all related reports.
Background:
The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 authorized Youth Opportunity
Grants (YO), a $1 billion, 5-year program aimed at increasing the
educational attainment and long-term employment of youth residing in
high poverty areas. The program was designed to assist at-risk, hard-
to-serve youth and the communities in which they live by concentrating
resources into a targeted geographic area. YO expanded on earlier
demonstration programs that were based on a similar design, the most
recent of which were known as Kulick grants. The Department of Labor
(the Department) announced the 36 YO grantees[Footnote 4]--24 urban, 6
rural, and 6 Native American--in February 2000 and set a goal for the
grantees to have their programs operational by September of that year.
Although the Department originally planned to continue to add grantees,
funding for the program was eliminated in the budget for fiscal year
2004. Figure 1 shows the 36 grantees by location.
Figure 1: Location of Youth Opportunity Grantees:
[See PDF for image]
Note: In Robeson County, N.C., and Imperial County, Calif., the program
only operated in certain areas of the county.
[End of figure]
The Department of Labor's stated goals for the YO program were to
increase educational attainment and promote long-term employment of
youth in the target areas, as well as to improve the youth service
delivery systems in these communities. Specifically, grantees were
expected to effect increases in the rates of high school completion,
college enrollment, and employment, both for youth participating in the
program and, by extension, the overall target area. Grantees were also
expected to facilitate the delivery of services by partnering with
other institutions in the community, especially local schools and
colleges, the juvenile justice system, and private employers. The
program was designed to allow grantees to enhance the local
infrastructure of youth services by filling in critical service gaps,
coordinating existing services, and, in the case of some rural and
tribal areas, developing an infrastructure where services were limited.
Many of the YO program components were based on practices that experts
have identified as effective for working with at-risk youth, and the
design of the program supported flexibility and invention at the local
level. Based on a youth development framework that emphasizes a
comprehensive approach to meeting a young person's needs, the program
required YO grantees to offer a full range of education, employment,
and leadership development services as well as provide other supports
to the youth. Advocates and experts have also stressed that youth need
a place to gather where they feel comfortable and a sense of belonging.
In this vein, YO grantees were required to have at least one youth
center in the target community that would provide a focal point for
services and activities as well as a safe place for the youth to go. In
addition, grantees were expected to maintain a core staff of trained
youth workers and to provide follow up services to participants for at
least 2 years after they completed participation in program activities,
which is in keeping with the identified effective practice of providing
youth access to a caring, trusted adult for an extended period of time.
Additionally, experts have suggested youth benefit from the opportunity
to continue a relationship with a program for as long as they need.
Similarly, the program had flexible enrollment rules that allowed
participants to remain enrolled even through periods of inactivity.
However, the program design allowed grantees latitude in deciding many
of the particulars of the program. For example, grantees could choose
how and by whom services would be delivered, the number and location of
the YO centers, and the institutions with which they partnered. Figure
2 displays the key components of Youth Opportunity Grant program.
Like some prior demonstration programs that the Department of Labor has
administered, eligibility for YO was not based on income, but rather on
geographic residence. Youth between the ages of 14 and 21 living in the
target area were eligible for the program, regardless of income. In
most cases, the target areas were federally designated empowerment
zones or enterprise communities, which are, by definition, areas with
high rates of poverty.
The Department of Labor provided extensive, ongoing technical
assistance to grantees. The Department assigned grantees coaches with
considerable experience working in youth programs who helped grantees
with a range of issues, such as developing services and building
partnerships. The Department also collaborated with a private
foundation to establish a training institute that provided courses in
youth development to more than 2,000 youth workers. In addition, the
Department sponsored opportunities for grantees to share best practices
and strategies in regular directors' meetings and conference calls and
through peer-to-peer training sessions.
The Department laid the foundation for collecting performance data on
the program by setting up a management information system (MIS). The
Department collected performance data on the YO program in a
centralized, electronic system. Grantees submitted information to
fulfill requirements of the Workforce Investment Act, which mandated
that grantees report on seven performance measures related to
employment, retention, earnings, attainment of skills, and attainment
of credentials. In addition to these, grantees reported on interim
measures developed by the Department to gauge the progress of
participants as they moved through the program. These measures were
designed to document youth participation in activities and other
intermediate milestones.
The Department had funded several prior programs premised on a
geographic and community concept similar to that of the YO, although on
a much smaller scale, but little information is available on the impact
of these demonstration programs. Although evaluations were conducted of
these earlier programs, the impact studies were either incomplete or
not released. The first of these demonstrations, Youth Opportunities
Unlimited, was evaluated and the results published, but the study did
not include a systematic analysis of impact based on comparison groups.
The funding for the second demonstration, Youth Fair Chance, was cut 2
years into the program, and although the evaluation study was
published, it was based on only 2 of the planned 5 years of the
program. As a result, the authors of this study advised that the
findings should be interpreted cautiously. The most recent of the
demonstration programs was known as the Kulick grants. The Department
has prepared an evaluation of the Kulick grants, but has not yet
released the results publicly.
For the Youth Opportunity Grants, the Department set up an extensive
effort in 2000 to collect and analyze information to assess the
program's impact. The Department contracted for a $24 million
evaluation study that included plans to estimate the impact of the
program by comparing key characteristics in the YO communities and
comparable areas that did not receive YO grants. It was to begin in
2000, and the final report was originally scheduled to be completed in
July 2005. The study was designed to differentiate between those
observed changes in participants and the communities that resulted from
the program and those that would have occurred even without the
program's intervention.
Grantees Carried Out the Program Using a Variety of Approaches:
Grantees adapted key elements of the program's design to their
particular circumstances and used a variety of approaches in providing
services and conducting outreach. Grantees set up centers that varied
widely in terms of number and other characteristics where youth could
receive services and participate in activities. The centers housed a
core staff who provided case management and helped plan individualized
services for youth. Staff numbers and duties differed between grantees.
Most grantees used the management information system (MIS) provided by
the Department of Labor to submit program data to the Department, but
some used their own systems. Most grantees used a combination of
approaches to provide youth services, including collaborating with
other organizations and, when they deemed it necessary, developing
services of their own. To reach hard-to-serve target population,
grantees used a variety of recruiting techniques, ranging from the
conventional to the innovative.
Figure 2: Key Components of Youth Opportunity Grant Program:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Grantees Adapted Program's Design to Their Particular Circumstances:
The centers set up under the terms of the grant varied widely in number
and character. Because the target communities varied in size, some
grantees had 1 center while other, more geographically dispersed
grantees had as many as 40. The centers were intended to serve as the
hub of the local programs, and the types of activities offered in them
differed considerably. One center we visited in rural Louisiana had a
variety of recreational facilities, such as a basketball court and
recreation room, in addition to a classroom, computer lab, and staff
offices. Youth participating in this program told us nothing like these
facilities had existed for them before the YO program. On the other
hand, a center we visited in Houston resembled a traditional career
center, with computer kiosks set up near staff offices where the youth
could undertake job searches and skills assessments. Houston officials
said they had formerly offered some recreational activities on site,
but found them to be duplicative of other services available in the
neighborhood. Some grantees provided still other facilities at their
centers. For example, Baltimore had an on-site health clinic and music
recording studio. Some grantees also had centers located within
schools. The District of Columbia had staff sited in a local high
school, where they offered training and support for youth. This in-
school center was located in a large classroom, with a staff office off
to one side and furnished with a computer lab with equipment purchased
by the grantee. Figure 3 depicts photos of two youth opportunity grant
centers we visited.
Figure 3: Photos of YO Centers:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The centers housed staff who varied substantially in number and makeup.
Houston divided staff duties between as many as 115 people working in 4
centers. In this program, "personal service representatives" provided
case management and identified youths' goals and training needs, and
"employment counselors" assisted youth with job searches and conducted
follow-up services to youth who had been placed in employment. Other
grantees, however, had sites with only one person performing all of the
major staff duties. At the California Indian Manpower Consortium (CIMC)
Manchester Point Arena site, one youth worker handled recruitment, case
management, and job placement. Because of the remoteness of the site,
this youth worker also frequently drove a van, weekly transporting
youth to services as far as 4 hours away.
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Most grantees used the management information system (MIS) provided by
the Department of Labor to record program data, but some used their own
systems and then submitted the data to the Department. Those who did
not use the Department MIS used a variety of systems. For example,
Milwaukee developed its own system with the aim of using it in
conjunction with other youth programs offered by its local Workforce
Investment Board.[Footnote 5] Similarly, Hartford developed customized
software that enabled it to share information with other provider
agencies and the schools in the community.
Grantees Used Collaboration and Invention to Varying Degrees in
Delivering Services:
Grantees used a combination of approaches to establish a network of
educational, occupational, and other services for youth, but varied the
extent to which they relied on other providers. Grantees availed
themselves of existing services, either through formal arrangements or
by referring participants to other organizations in the community.
Kansas City arranged for youth to attend classes at other local
agencies to help prepare for the GED exam. Similarly, Baltimore
referred young women who needed interview clothing to a local charity
organization. Most grantees also collaborated with other institutions
to provide some services. San Antonio partnered with a local community
college to establish academies in which youth could spend half a day on
their home campuses and half a day at the community college, allowing
them to earn a certificate or associate degree in areas such as
aviation or biotechnology. Houston purchased credit retrieval software
for local high schools that students could use to complete their
academic requirements for graduation. In addition, grantees originated
programs to fill perceived gaps in services. Memphis established its
own charter school with an emphasis on the arts in order to provide
alternative education opportunities for the youth, one of the
emphasized youth activities in the program. To provide leadership
development opportunities, one of the CIMC sites sponsored a cemetery
care project. In this project, participants worked with the tribal
elders to make a map of the local cemetery with the names of the
deceased because cemeteries on this reservation did not have
headstones. Table 1 shows youth activities and examples of how grantees
implemented the activities.
Table 1: YO Program Areas, Corresponding Youth Activities, and Examples
of Implementation:
YO program area: Improving educational achievement;
Youth activities: Tutoring, study skills training, and instruction,
including dropout prevention strategies;
Example of implementation: Birmingham created an intensive 9-week
dropout prevention program called Operation Yes that targeted 8th, 9th,
and 10th graders functioning one or more grade levels below their
current grade. It combined academic remediation with job readiness
training, life skills sessions, and a paid work experience.
Youth activities: Alternative secondary school services;
Example of implementation: Cleveland partnered with their local school
district to offer on-site the Twilight School program, a diploma-track
high school for dropouts. The program offered mastery- based credit
classes at a time and in a setting conducive to these youth.
YO program area: Preparation for and success in employment;
Youth activities: Summer employment opportunities directly linked to
academic and occupational learning;
Example of implementation: Louisville partnered with the local bar
association to provide summer internships for interested YO
participants.
Youth activities: Paid and unpaid work experiences, including
internships and job shadowing;
Example of implementation: Boston developed the Transitional Employment
Services program, a four- tiered approach to employment training and
job placement. Youth could progress from the lowest tier, which focused
on basic employability skills and gaining experience through community
service projects, to the highest level, which focused on helping youth
find unsubsidized employment.
Youth activities: Occupational skills training;
Example of implementation: Moloka'i partnered with a local fishpond to
give youth hands-on experience in areas such as basic computing,
seaweed farming, aquaculture, carpentry, and plumbing.
YO program area: Services to develop the potential of youth as citizens
and leaders;
Youth activities: Leadership development opportunities;
Example of implementation: Brockton trained youth to be mediators and
youth coordinators to resolve conflicts at the YO center and in their
community. The program was funded through a grant from the Attorney
General's office.
YO program area: Supports for youth;
Youth activities: Supportive services;
Example of implementation: Cook Inlet Tribal Council created the Summer
Bridging Institute, a program that brought youth from small villages
who had been accepted to the University of Alaska, Anchorage to campus
before the start of the fall semester. The program offered youth the
chance to acclimate to urban campus life and to bond with other
students, with the goal of increasing the likelihood they would stay in
college.
Youth activities: Follow up services for at least 24 months;
Example of implementation: Houston switched from following up quarterly
to following up monthly with youth who had been placed in employment.
Staff found it was easier to keep track of the youth if they contacted
them more frequently.
Youth activities: YO program area : Adult mentoring;
Example of implementation: YO program area : Southeast Arkansas
assigned adult mentors to youth according to similar interests or
career goals. Adults spent at least 2 hours per week with the youth and
reported their activities to the program through written documentation.
Youth activities: Comprehensive guidance and counseling;
Example of implementation: Baltimore arranged for a community
organization to hold weekly support groups for young fathers. A service
specialist presented a parenting education curriculum, with group
sessions intended to improve the involvement of fathers in the lives of
their children.
Source: Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and GAO analysis of documents
from Department and grantees.
[End of table]
Grantees also used an array of strategies to help youth find long-term
educational or occupational opportunities and to follow up with
participants after they exited the program. Some grantees had staff
specifically devoted to finding appropriate employment opportunities
and connecting youth with these opportunities. For example, Milwaukee
created the position of job developer, who identified potential
employers and spoke to them directly about the youth in the program.
Grantees also used a number of methods for helping youth enroll in post-
secondary institutions, such as conducting college tours, assisting
with financial aid forms, and placing support staff on college
campuses. The statutory provision authorizing the YO program required
grantees to provide follow-up services for 2 years after the youth
completed participation in program activities. Grantees recorded on a
quarterly basis the employment and education status of the youth who
had completed participation in the program, for example, if they were
in school or working at the time of contact. Some grantees contacted
youth more frequently. Staff in Baltimore told us they varied the
frequency depending on the degree to which they regarded the young
person to be at some risk. One might be contacted monthly, while
another would be checked on nearly every day.
Grantees Actively Recruited Youth, Including the Hard to Serve, and
Used Incentives to Draw and Maintain Involvement:
Grantees recruited youth, including traditionally difficult to serve
populations, by creating connections with other youth-serving agencies.
Milwaukee operated a juvenile justice project to help youth coming out
of the corrections system to reintegrate into the community. Personnel
at a local correctional facility worked with program staff to identify
those due for release who were expecting to live within the geographic
target area of the program. Program staff traveled to the facility to
conduct an orientation session and then worked with the youth,
corrections officials, and parents to develop a reintegration plan. The
services offered to them were similar to those offered to all of the YO
participants.
Grantees also used a variety of innovative methods to recruit
participants. Since many of the youth were disconnected from both
school and work, as one grantee told us, they could be not only hard to
serve, but hard to find. Some grantees went beyond conventional
outreach activities of mailers and radio advertisements and conducted
community walking campaigns using staff to saturate shopping malls and
other areas where youth congregate. Others used youth to lead
recruitment. In some cases, a grantee used employment as an inducement
to link youth to other activities the program offered. For example,
Louisiana's work program allowed participants to work more hours in
subsidized employment the further they advanced toward their
educational goals. We were told many of the youth lived in unstable
economic conditions, and these needs had to be addressed before the
youth would focus on other areas, such as education. In other cases,
grantees used cash or non-monetary rewards to encourage participation.
In Houston, youth could attend special events, such as a basketball
game, if they participated in the program a minimum number of hours.
Grantees Used Program Design to Address Major Challenges, but Found
Start-up Time to be Short:
Grantees were able to address a variety of challenges in setting up the
program and delivering services to youth using local discretion,
flexible enrollment rules, and other aspects of the program's design,
but they and others said a longer start-up period would have been
beneficial. Most grantees found it difficult to establish centers and
retain participants in their programs. They felt that these challenges
were compounded by expectations for a quick start-up, and subsequently
they and Department officials felt more planning time would have been
beneficial. Grantees also had difficulty establishing an information-
reporting system, but once in place, found it was helpful for program
management purposes. Conditions in the communities such as violence and
lack of jobs presented a challenge to most grantees, but they took
advantage of the local discretion built into the program to develop
strategies to address them. Grantees also cited as an obstacle the vast
service needs of many of the youth the program was intended to serve,
but case management, individualized services, and flexible enrollment
rules were useful in dealing with them.
Grantees Felt Challenged to Set Up Program in Time Allotted, and More
Planning Time Would Have Been Beneficial:
The majority of grantees reported that finding or renovating centers
was a challenge. Many grantees did not have suitable sites in their
communities for use as centers, and some put considerable effort into
renovating existing structures. In the extreme, the grantee in Alaska
renovated 40 centers in remote communities not accessible by road and
shipped equipment and material by air. In a few cases, grantees did not
have a permanent building until after the first year of the program. In
Boston, the program was housed in temporary facilities for a period of
time because a permanent center could not be completed for the
program's opening.
Another challenge identified by most grantees was retaining
participants, which grantees linked in part to expectations from the
Department to start to enroll youth quickly. The Department set a goal
to recruit 3,000 participants nationwide within the first few months of
the program, or a little less than 100 youth per grantee. Some grantees
said they felt rushed to meet recruitment goals and told us they
recruited many youth who were not committed to the program. In
addition, several directors mentioned that they felt they were asked to
serve participants before their programming was fully developed, a
situation that as one expert commented, was akin to asking grantees to
"fly the plane before they were finished building it." We were told
that, in these situations, some youth became disenchanted with the
program and left because of the limited offerings the center presented
early on.
Grantees, agency officials, and experts said a longer planning period
would have been beneficial. Grantees had an 7 month window between the
announcement of the grant recipients and the Department's target date
for having the programs operational. For example, two grantees with
whom we spoke said about three additional months would have been
necessary for them to meet the goals set out by the Department. Agency
officials also told us that grantees were pushed to start-up too
quickly and could have benefited from more time to plan. Agency
officials said it would have been appropriate to give grantees more
time to meet the Department's initial goals.
Grantees Had Difficulties Establishing an Information Reporting System,
but Found It Useful Once in Place:
Most grantees reported that establishing an information reporting
system was challenging, and grantees told us it would have been useful
for the Department to have had a workable system in place at the outset
of the program. The management information system (MIS) initially
provided by the Department was fraught with problems. Department
officials told us it took about 18 months to iron out the kinks. In
addition, the Office of Inspector General identified inconsistencies in
the way grantees were recording data early on.[Footnote 6] Although the
Department eventually developed an improved system, grantees said it
would have been better had the MIS been in place from the beginning.
Not having a system in place created additional burden for the
grantees. For example, Louisiana developed its own system to collect
information until an updated system was available and then manually
transferred 11 months of data into the new MIS.
Once in place, grantees additionally used the information system for
their own program management purposes such as to improve performance
and reinforce accountability. The Hartford grantee was able to
integrate its system with the school district, allowing case managers
to track attendance and grades to allow better monitoring of
participant achievements. The Hartford system also enabled program
management to see which case managers were most successful at engaging
youth in the activities required for the completion of their goals.
Regarding accountability, Portland used its information system to
monitor the performance of its contractors on a weekly basis.
Grantees Used Their Discretion to Address Community-Based Challenges:
Some of the major challenges also identified by grantees were problems
external to the program, yet affected their ability to deliver
services. Twenty-eight of the grantees reported on the survey that a
lack of jobs in the community was a challenge. In some areas, jobs were
on the decline because of shifts in the local economy or relocation of
major employers. For example, the grantee in San Francisco related that
due to the dot-com bust, youth in the program were competing with a
skilled workforce willing to fill entry level positions that would
otherwise be available to youth. In other areas, especially rural ones,
there were few employers, let alone large ones. In addition, 29 of 36
grantees reported on the survey that risk factors such as violence,
drugs, and gangs were challenges in implementing the program. In some
cases, these factors made it difficult for participants to receive
services. In one urban community, we were told there were safety
concerns with youth participating in evening activities sponsored by
the YO because they would have to return home after dark.
Local discretion built into the program design helped grantees respond
to external challenges. Within the structure of the program, grantees
were allowed some amount of latitude to develop responses to
circumstances in their communities, such as a scarcity of jobs. For
example, the California Indian Manpower Consortium created
opportunities for youth to have work experiences, such as subsidizing
summer jobs with local business including a campground and senior
center or working with the tribe to place youth in clerical positions.
Similarly, grantees were able to develop services to address specific
risk factors in their communities. Imperial County offered a curriculum
series to help address interpersonal violence among adolescents, an
issue they had identified as particularly problematic in their area.
The series was designed to reduce impulsive and aggressive behavior
through empathy training, interpersonal problem solving, behavior skill
training, and anger management. In Milwaukee, the grantee addressed
safety concerns by renting vans to transport the youth to nighttime
events.
Service Needs of Participants Presented Challenges, but Tailored
Services, Individualized Planning, and Flexible Enrollment Rules Were
Useful in Addressing Them:
Grantees identified as a major challenge the obstacles faced by their
clients, such as homelessness, lack of family support, mental health
problems, and low levels of academic attainment. Staff in Baltimore
told us homelessness was a frequent issue faced by youth in their area
and finding a place to sleep can preoccupy the youth and disrupt the
learning process. YO staff and others said that participants may lack
support in other areas of their lives, such as from their families. For
example, one grantee told us of a participant who was awarded a full
scholarship to college, but the parents would not sign the paperwork to
receive the money. Some youth also faced mental health issues, which
prevented them from moving forward in their lives. All of these
factors, we were told, could mean a slow start for youth who enrolled
in the program. The director of an alternative high school in Milwaukee
told us that because of the disorder in their lives, many of these
youth may take a year just to become comfortable in the program before
they can even begin making any forward progress.
Grantees found aspects of the program design such as case management,
individualized services, and flexible enrollment rules useful in
addressing the service challenges of participants. For example,
grantees used assessments to help determine the academic needs of
clients and provide each client with the appropriate individualized
services. Philadelphia designed a program in which each participant had
a personalized remediation plan based on the results of an evaluation
test and interview with an education coach. This plan was intended to
build on clients' strengths and accounted for their particular learning
styles. After the initial assessment, participants were reevaluated at
regular intervals to monitor their academic progress and goal
attainment. The curriculum was designed so that youth could increase at
least one grade level after 90 hours of instruction. In addition, both
youth and community members told us that YO staff were key in helping
youth stay motivated and guiding them through difficult situations.
Grantees also found the enrollment rules useful in working toward
program goals. The program's enrollment policy allowed most
participants to continue to receive services even if they experienced
periods of inactivity. Staff in Houston told us that the policy was a
benefit to the youth because, unlike other employment programs, YO did
not end their relationship with youth who had not been participating
for a while.
Grantees and Others Reported That Participants and Their Communities
Made Progress, but the Program's Impact Is Still under Study:
Grantees and others reported that the participants and their
communities made advancements in education and employment; however, a
formal assessment of the program's impact is still under study. Data
reported by the grantees showed that a number of youth advanced their
education while they were participating in the program, such as
completing high school. Grantees also reported data showing a portion
of the participants entered unsubsidized employment after enrolling in
the program. Similarly, grantees and others believe their communities
made advancements toward the Department's stated education and
employment goals of the program. In addition, the majority of grantees
reported that they made improvements in the youth service delivery
systems in their communities. The Department funded an evaluation to
assess the impact of the program, which was designed to shed light on
the extent to which observed changes can be attributed to the program.
However, the study has not yet been completed.
Grantees Reported Data Showing Some Participants Advanced Their
Education and Found Employment:
Data reported by the grantees showed that a number of youth advanced
their education while they were participating in the program. Two of
the Department's primary goals of program were to increase the rates of
high school completion and college enrollment for the youth. Data that
grantees entered into the management information system (MIS) showed
that of the approximately 91,000 youth who signed up for in the program
nationwide, about 18,700 either completed high school or attained a GED
after enrolling in the program. In addition, about 11,700 youth entered
college, 37 percent of whom were reported to be out of school when they
initially enrolled in the program. Youth with whom we spoke credited
the program with giving them a second chance to increase their
education and to better their employment opportunities. One Louisiana
youth's comments typified what we heard elsewhere from participants
during our site visits, "YO is the best thing that has happened to me.
YO has given me a job and put a little money in my pocket." He added,
"YO has also been instrumental in keeping me out of jail. Above all, YO
has helped me realize that education is important." Figure 4 summarizes
enrollment, participation, education, and employment data for youth in
the program, as of June 2005.
Figure 4: Number of Youth Who Signed up for, Participated in, and
Achieved at Least One Educational or Employment Goal of the Program:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The five educational status and long-term placement categories
are not mutually exclusive.
[End of figure]
Grantees reported data showing that a portion of the youth entered
unsubsidized employment after completing YO activities. Data from the
MIS show that about 17,300 youth were placed in employment that was not
subsidized by the program, 62 percent of whom were out of school when
they initially enrolled in the program. Grantees and others told us the
job readiness training that some youth received as part of the program
was particularly important in helping them get jobs. Employers we spoke
with told us they knew the youth that were sent to them by YO would be
well trained and ready to work. A local human resources manager for a
national chain of home improvement stores told us that he thought YO
participants were better prepared for employment than other residents
of the area, adding that they show up with better job skills and "soft"
skills.
Grantees and Others Believe Their Communities Moved toward Program
Goals:
Grantees and others expressed the view that their communities had made
advancements in concert with the Department's education and employment
goals for the program. Almost all of the grantees reported that high
school completion, college enrollment, and youth employment rates
improved in their communities as a result of the program. Several
grantees also asserted that affecting the youth led to changes in the
community. In addition, community members with whom we spoke said the
program helped their communities make progress toward greater education
and employment. For example, a tribal leader in California told us that
YO motivated the youth in his tribe to stay in school. Similarly, one
expert pointed to some of the rural grantees who had many youth enroll
in college, which she said was especially important because of a lack
of jobs in these areas.
The majority of grantees reported making improvements in the youth
service delivery systems in their communities. Some of the described
changes were to the service infrastructure in these communities. For
example, San Diego pointed out that it had created a multiservice youth
center in a neighborhood where none had existed before. Grantees cited
other improvements related to the mode of service delivery. Tucson
reported that prior to YO, it had funded three stand-alone youth
programs, but now it has a one-stop system with multiple entry points
for delivering youth services. Other grantees noted that their efforts
to foster better communication and collaboration among service
providers had benefited the youth. As the Portland grantee commented,
by partnering with their local employment department and community
college system, they were able to leverage staff to provide intensive
job search and college preparation services to youth. In other cases,
local leaders credited the YO as a catalyst for change in their
community. For example, a school superintendent in California told us
that YO staff had helped to forge an agreement between the school
district and five Indian tribes in the area to develop an education
curriculum that would be more sensitive to the tribes' cultures.
Department of Labor's Study of Program Impact Has Not Been Completed:
While the Department of Labor funded an evaluation designed to assess
the impact of the program, it has not yet been completed. This was
planned as a 5-year, $24 million evaluation, which began in 2000. As
part of the evaluation, the Department conducted baseline and follow-up
surveys of the target areas, and gathered extensive descriptions of the
36 programs and communities. The evaluation also included plans for an
impact study that was designed to compare YO participants and
communities with other, similar youth and communities that did not
participate in YO. This type of comparative analysis would be necessary
to determine if the events reported by grantees and others would have
occurred in the absence of the program. However, the evaluation is not
finished. Moreover, agency officials are unsure if the impact study
that was to be part of the evaluation will be completed. Due to
departmental allocations being lower than expected, the Department
spent $1.9 million less than the full amount of the original contract
on the evaluation. Agency officials told us that the impact study was
likely to be scaled back because of the lower allocation. The
evaluation was originally scheduled to be completed in July 2005.
However, agency officials told us they do not expect the study to be
finished until June 2006.
Conclusions:
The Youth Opportunity Grant program was designed to help at-risk youth
and their communities by concentrating resources geographically and by
incorporating components that experts have suggested are effective in
assisting this population. To continue to improve the ability to serve
these youth, researchers and practitioners must be able to learn from
the most promising and innovative approaches in serving these youth,
including those used in the Youth Opportunity Grant program. The
Department of Labor has begun an evaluation of the program that
includes many pieces of a potentially useful study. Although
informative, these pieces will not by themselves answer the question of
impact, in other words, whether the described events would have
occurred in the absence of the program. In order to understand what
effect, if any, the program had on these observed events, it is
necessary to have a systematic comparison with other, similar
communities that did not receive grants. The Department planned, but
has not yet completed, such an analysis as part of the evaluation. The
Department has an opportunity to contribute to the research on programs
for serving at-risk youth, if the evaluation study is completed and the
results made public. However, the Department has not taken full
advantage of past opportunities to release information on other
programs based on a similar model, such as the Kulick grants. Given the
$1 billion investment in this program--including almost $24 million for
an evaluation effort--and the need for rigorous data on these types of
programs, the study should be completed and the results should be made
available. Unless the Department completes the evaluation of the Youth
Opportunity Grant program and releases the results, researchers and
practitioners will not be able to fully realize the potential to learn
from the program.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To continue to improve efforts to serve at-risk youth and in order that
researchers can evaluate the quality of information and determine
possible impact of the program, we recommend that the Secretary of
Labor take the actions necessary to complete the impact analysis of the
Youth Opportunity Grant program and release the data and all related
research reports from the program's evaluation.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor for its
review and comment. In its response, the Department agreed with our
conclusions and recommendation and indicated that it intends to
complete the impact analysis and publish all related reports from the
Youth Opportunity Grant program evaluation. A copy of the Department's
response is in appendix II. The Department also provided us with
technical comments, which we incorporated into the report where
appropriate.
We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, relevant
congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will also
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report
will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (415) 904-2272 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
David D. Bellis:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To accomplish our research objectives, we surveyed Youth Opportunity
Grant Program directors on the implementation of the Youth Opportunity
Grants. To augment information from our survey, we conducted five site
visits of programs. We chose sites for our visits to represent
proportionately the three grantee types (urban, rural, and Native
American) as well as their geographic distribution. The grantees we
visited were the District of Columbia, Houston, Milwaukee, rural
Louisiana, and the California Indian Manpower Consortium. During our
visits we met with program administrators, staff, and participants to
learn their perspectives on program implementation, challenges,
outcomes, impact, and lessons learned. Also, we interviewed local
workforce board members, school officials, community based service
providers, private employers, and local government officials to discuss
their perspectives on the impact and other aspects of the program. In
addition, we toured Youth Opportunity Centers, in-school facilities,
and observed program activities. We briefly visited an additional two
grantees--Baltimore and Philadelphia--in the course of pretesting the
survey, and while at their sites, toured centers and spoke with program
administrators, staff, and participants. We gathered additional
information by reviewing agency documents including site assessments
and grant applications. We also interviewed agency officials and other
relevant experts, including researchers, representatives of advocacy
organizations, YO coaches, and former Department of Labor officials. We
performed our work from September 2004 to November 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We also investigated several possible sources of external data to
quantitatively measure outcomes and impact, but determined none of them
were feasible for our purposes. The data sets we reviewed were: Current
Population Survey, Common Core of Data, National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth, High School and Beyond, and American Community Survey.
Survey of Youth Opportunity Grant Program Directors:
To learn about the implementation of the Youth Opportunity Grants, we
conducted a Web-based survey of all Youth Opportunity Grant Program
Directors. We asked directors about the usefulness of program
components, challenges they faced implementing the program and
strategies used to deal with them, and their opinion on the program's
impact on participants and communities. Additionally, we asked
directors about the size and structure of their programs, the manner in
which they delivered services, and the types of organizations with
which their programs partnered. The survey also included a series of
questions about how programs maintained information to help us
determine the reliability of data in the Department of Labor's
management information system. We pretested the survey with several
program directors and modified the survey to take their comments into
account. All 36 program directors completed the survey, for a response
rate of 100 percent. We administered the survey between March 17 and
May 31, 2005. To view selected results of the survey, go to GAO-06-
56SP.
Department of Labor Management Information System (MIS):
We used electronic data collected on the program by the Department of
Labor in a management information system (MIS) to describe the number
of youth in the program who achieved the Department's goals for the
program, such as high school completion, college enrollment, and long-
term education and employment placements. We have determined the MIS
data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this study through
discussions with officials at the Department of Labor, in-depth
interviews with MIS staff during site visits, and responses to a
comprehensive array of survey items in which each grantee described
their procedures for editing and auditing the data they entered into
the MIS. We analyzed the MIS data using guidance provided to us by the
Department.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training:
Washington, D.C. 20210:
NOV 22 2005:
Mr. David D. Bellis:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Bellis:
Thank you for providing the draft report GAO-06-53 entitled, "Youth
Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but Labor
Needs to Make Data Available." We appreciate your efforts in
identifying innovative grantee practices and lessons learned that we
may consider for future grant initiatives.
We have learned many important lessons through the Youth Opportunity
Grant (YOG) program. First, and most importantly, the YOG program
demonstrated that money alone does not solve the problems faced by at-
risk youth. Many local sites struggled for a number of years because of
a lack of clear vision and solid local leadership. Some locations
suffered from a lack of clear focus on what is most important for
youth: educational attainment and meaningful job and career
opportunities. Based on our experience, the most successful youth
programs are ones that utilize a demand-driven approach whereby private
sector funds are leveraged and invested, quality secondary and post-
secondary programs are accessible and local leadership is outcome-
oriented and dynamic.
In response to the recommendation to complete the evaluation of the YOG
program, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) always has been
unequivocally committed to completing the analysis. Unfortunately, some
of the initial evaluation design was flawed and focused on "perception"
and process rather than impact, but we have done our best to refocus
the design to get to meaningful analysis of impact and outcomes.
Based on recent discussions between DOL and the evaluation contractor,
we do not believe at this time that completing the analysis will
require adding funds beyond what has already been obligated to the
evaluation contract. DOL will release the impact data and all related
reports from the program's evaluation, including the Kulick
demonstration reports, when completed.
Enclosed are DOL's technical comments on the draft report. If you would
like additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (202)
693-2700.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Emily Stover DeRocco:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
[End of section]
GAO Contact:
David Bellis, Director, (415) 904-2272, bellisd@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
David Lehrer, Assistant Director, and Anne Welch, Analyst-in-Charge,
managed this assignment and made significant contributions to all
aspects of the work. Dan Concepcion and Eleanor Johnson also made
significant contributions to this report. In addition, Kevin Jackson
assisted in all aspects of the survey of Program Directors and in
reviewing external data sources. Jerry Sandau and Cathy Hurley assisted
in the analysis of the MIS data and assessment of the MIS data
reliability. Jessica Botsford provided legal support, and Susan
Bernstein provided writing assistance.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve Quality
of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. GAO-04-308.
Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information
Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003:
Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service
Strategies, but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development.
GAO-02-413. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002.
[End of section]
(130405):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Andrew Sum, Ishwar Khatiwada, Nathan Pond, and Mykhaylo Trub'skyy,
Left Behind in the Labor Market: Labor Market Problems of the Nation's
Out of School, Young Adult Populations. Center for Labor Market Studies
(Northeastern University: November 2002).
[2] Pub. Law. No. 105-220.
[3] To view selected results from the survey, go to GAO-06-56SP.
[4] For the purposes of this report, we refer to the entity that
operated the program as a grantee. The 36 recipients of the grants were
workforce investment boards, states, counties, cities, and other
entities. Some recipients contracted out the operations of the program,
while others directly offered services to youth.
[5] As stated in the Workforce Investment Act, a local Workforce
Investment Board is an entity designated to set policy for the
statewide workforce system within the local area.
[6] Office of Inspector General, Department of Labor, Workforce
Investment Act, Youth Opportunity Program Audit, OIG Audit Report
Number 06-03-001-03-390 (March 2003).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
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.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-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 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. Government Accountability 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:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
