Disconnected Youth
Federal Action Could Address Some of the Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth to Education and Employment Gao ID: GAO-08-313 February 28, 2008While most young people successfully transition to adulthood, a significant number of youth are disconnected from school and employment. These youth are more likely than others to engage in crime, become incarcerated, and rely on public systems of support. Several federal agencies oversee a number of programs and grants that assist local programs in serving this population at the local level. GAO reviewed the following: (1) characteristics of locally operated programs that serve disconnected youth, (2) the key elements of locally operated programs to which directors attribute their success in reconnecting youth to education and employment, and (3) challenges involved in operating these programs and how federal agencies are helping to address these challenges. GAO interviewed officials from four federal agencies, experts, and directors of 39 local programs identified by agencies and experts as helping youth meet educational and employment goals.
The 39 local programs GAO reviewed differed in their funding sources and program structure, yet shared some characteristics, such as years of experience serving youth. These programs received funding from multiple sources: federal, state, local, and private, although most relied on some federal funds. They were structured differently--for example, some were community-based organizations that provided services on a daily basis, some were charter schools, and some offered residential living. Most of the programs were created to address local concerns such as youth homelessness or dropout rates, and many had at least 10 years of experience serving youth. Program directors GAO interviewed attributed their success in reconnecting youth to education and employment to several key elements of their programs. These included effective staff and leadership; a holistic approach to serving youth that addresses the youth's multiple needs; specific program design components, such as experiential learning opportunities and self-paced curricula; and a focus on empowering youth. Many of the 39 local program directors reported common challenges in operating their programs--the complex circumstances of their participants, service gaps, funding constraints, and management of federal grants--that increased federal coordination efforts under way may help address. Most of the 15 directors that relied on Labor's Workforce Investment Act Youth funds reported that meeting performance goals within 1-year time frames that workforce investment boards often write into contracts hinders their ability to serve youth with great challenges, who may need more time to obtain skills. Labor officials reported that they intend for workforce investment boards to develop longer-term contracts to help programs serve hard-to-employ youth. Labor has provided limited technical assistance and is considering issuing guidance on this issue, but has not established a time frame to do so. Federal agencies have recently intensified their coordination efforts, which may help local programs faced with challenges managing across multiple federal grants.
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-08-313, Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some of the Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth to Education and Employment
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-313
entitled 'Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some of the
Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth to Education
and Employment' which was released on March 31, 2008.
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 the Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
February 2008:
Disconnected Youth:
Federal Action Could Address Some of the Challenges Faced by Local
Programs That Reconnect Youth to Education and Employment:
Disconnected Youth:
GAO-08-313:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-313, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
While most young people successfully transition to adulthood, a
significant number of youth are disconnected from school and
employment. These youth are more likely than others to engage in crime,
become incarcerated, and rely on public systems of support. Several
federal agencies oversee a number of programs and grants that assist
local programs in serving this population at the local level. GAO
reviewed the following: (1) characteristics of locally operated
programs that serve disconnected youth, (2) the key elements of locally
operated programs to which directors attribute their success in
reconnecting youth to education and employment, and (3) challenges
involved in operating these programs and how federal agencies are
helping to address these challenges. GAO interviewed officials from
four federal agencies, experts, and directors of 39 local programs
identified by agencies and experts as helping youth meet educational
and employment goals.
What GAO Found:
The 39 local programs GAO reviewed differed in their funding sources
and program structure, yet shared some characteristics, such as years
of experience serving youth. These programs received funding from
multiple sources: federal, state, local, and private, although most
relied on some federal funds. They were structured differently”for
example, some were community-based organizations that provided services
on a daily basis, some were charter schools, and some offered
residential living. Most of the programs were created to address local
concerns such as youth homelessness or dropout rates, and many had at
least 10 years of experience serving youth.
Program directors GAO interviewed attributed their success in
reconnecting youth to education and employment to several key elements
of their programs. These included effective staff and leadership; a
holistic approach to serving youth that addresses the youth‘s multiple
needs; specific program design components, such as experiential
learning opportunities and self-paced curricula; and a focus on
empowering youth.
Many of the 39 local program directors reported common challenges in
operating their programs”the complex circumstances of their
participants, service gaps, funding constraints, and management of
federal grants”that increased federal coordination efforts under way
may help address. Most of the 15 directors that relied on Labor‘s
Workforce Investment Act Youth funds reported that meeting performance
goals within 1-year time frames that workforce investment boards often
write into contracts hinders their ability to serve youth with great
challenges, who may need more time to obtain skills. Labor officials
reported that they intend for workforce investment boards to develop
longer-term contracts to help programs serve hard-to-employ youth.
Labor has provided limited technical assistance and is considering
issuing guidance on this issue, but has not established a time frame to
do so. Federal agencies have recently intensified their coordination
efforts, which may help local programs faced with challenges managing
across multiple federal grants.
Figure: Key Elements of Local Programs Cited by 39 Program Directors in
Reconnecting Youth to Education and Employment:
This figure is a chart with illustration showing key elements of local
programs cited by 39 program directors in reconnecting youth to
education and employment.
Staff and leadership:
* Building strong relationships with youth;
* Garner community support.
Holistic comprehensive services:
* Counseling;
* Health services;
* Child care;
* Housing and food assistance.
Program design components:
* Experiential learning;
* Self-paced curricula;
* Incentives.
Youth empowerment:
* High expectations;
* Youth involvement;
* Clear code of conduct.
Goal: Successful transition by youth to adulthood and self-sufficiency
through education and employment.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by 39 local program
directors: Images (Art Explosion).
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Department of Labor (Labor) work with states
and workforce investment boards to better ensure they have the
information and guidance needed to develop and implement contracts that
allow local programs to serve youth who are in need of more assistance
than others while still achieving performance goals. Labor agreed with
our recommendation and identified several steps it plans to take to
implement it.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-313. For more information,
contact Cornelia Ashby at (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Local Programs We Reviewed Differed in Their Funding Sources and
Program Structure, yet Shared Some Characteristics:
Directors of the 39 Local Programs Cited Similar Key Elements in
Reconnecting Youth to Educational and Employment Goals:
Directors We Interviewed Cited Service Gaps, Funding Constraints, and
Federal Grant Management Challenges That Hindered Their Efforts;
Federal Coordination Efforts Under Way May Help Address Some of These
Issues:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: List of Local Programs Interviewed:
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix III: Key Federal Grant Programs That Serve Disconnected Youth:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Key Federal Grant Programs That Serve Disconnected Youth:
Table 2: Existing and New Common Measures for WIA Youth Program:
Figures:
Figure 1: Primary Sources of Funding for the 39 Programs We Reviewed:
Figure 2: Illustration of a Community Organization in Boston,
Massachusetts:
Figure 3: Illustration of a Charter School in Washington, D.C.
Figure 4: Illustration of a Transitional Living Program in Portland,
Oregon:
Figure 5: Key Elements of Local Programs Cited by Program Directors in
Reconnecting Youth to Education and Employment:
Figure 6: Staff Working with Youth Participants at Various Work Sites:
Figure 7: Example of a Local Job Corps Center's Holistic Approach to
Providing Comprehensive Support Services:
Figure 8: Workshop at a Local Program That Trains Out-of-School Youth
in Construction:
Figure 9: Gaps in Services for Disconnected Youth Reported by 39
Program Directors:
Figure 10: Programs Cite Multiple Challenges in Coordinating across
Federal Grant Programs:
Abbreviations:
CCJJDP: Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention:
GED: General Educational Development:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
YO: Youth Opportunity:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 28, 2008:
The Honorable George Miller:
Chairman:
Committee on Education and Labor:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
A significant number of American youth are not in school and not
working. Some of these young people may have become disconnected from
education and employment through incarceration, aging out of foster
care, dropping out of high school, or homelessness. As a result, these
"disconnected" youth may face difficulties in successfully
transitioning to adulthood and self-sufficiency.[Footnote 1] Not only
does this lead to negative outcomes for the youth themselves, but for
communities and the nation as a whole. Disconnected youth are more
likely than other youth to engage in criminal activities, become
incarcerated, and rely on public systems of support.
Federal, state, and local governments as well as private entities are
involved in helping to put these youth on a path to self-sufficiency
through education and/or employment. Several federal departments
oversee a number of federal grant programs in the areas of education,
employment, foster care, juvenile justice, and homelessness that can
serve this population at the local level. State and local governments
assist in the delivery of services to youth at this local entry point.
In addition, federal, state, and local collaborations exist that bring
together various agencies and programs with the aim of better
coordinating services to help these youth.
To respond to your interest in the federal role in improving outcomes
for disconnected youth, we looked at the following questions: (1) What
are some characteristics of locally operated programs that serve
disconnected youth? (2) What are the key elements of locally operated
programs to which program directors attribute their success in
reconnecting youth to education and employment? (3) What challenges are
involved in implementing and operating these programs and how are
federal agencies helping to address these challenges?
To conduct this work, we asked federal agency officials and 11 experts
on youth issues to identify local entities that are operating programs
or initiatives with federal or other funding that have been successful
in helping disconnected youth reach educational or employment goals. We
asked the experts and agency officials, on the basis of their
experience and expertise, to identify local programs that could serve
as examples or models for expansion or replication; rigorous program
evaluations were generally not available. The experts were selected for
their understanding of and range of perspectives on youth issues as
well as their knowledge of efforts under way at the local level. We
identified and interviewed officials from four primary federal agencies
that support programs working with this population: the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Justice, and Education. We
selected these agencies based on their legislative mandate to
administer relevant federal programs, our previous work, reports from
the Congressional Research Service and the White House Task Force for
Disadvantaged Youth,[Footnote 2] and discussions with federal
officials. We reviewed relevant appropriation and other laws,
regulations, and documents pertaining to the key federal programs and
coordinating bodies involved with assisting disconnected youth, and
synthesized information from interviews with appropriate federal
officials.
Out of 100 programs that were identified, we interviewed 39 directors
of locally operated programs using a standard set of questions. We
selected programs that were geographically diverse, and that
represented both urban and rural locations. We also selected programs
with a range of approaches to working with disconnected youth, such as
employment skills training programs, alternative education programs,
transitional living programs, and programs that targeted different
subpopulations of disconnected youth in 16 states and the District of
Columbia. See appendix I for a complete list of the 39 programs. We
conducted in-person interviews with directors and youth participants in
19 of these programs, and completed the remaining interviews with
directors by phone. See appendix II for more information on our scope
and methodology. We conducted this performance audit from May 2007 to
February 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
The 39 local programs we reviewed received funding from a range of
government and private sources, and differed in their program
structure, yet shared some characteristics. These youth-serving
programs received funding from federal, state, local, and private
sources. Nearly half of the 39 local youth-serving programs we reviewed
received a combination of funding from these sources, and all but 6 of
the programs received some federal funding. Some federal funding
sources required programs to follow a specific model or offer a
standard set of services, while others allowed programs to use funding
more flexibly. The programs also varied in their program structure. For
example, several programs were community organizations that provided
specific training for the youth at their organization during the day.
Some were established as charter schools, and others were residential
programs, most often providing transitional housing to runaway and
homeless youth. Some of the programs were a combination of these
different approaches. Within these different program structures, select
programs also targeted their efforts to specific youth subpopulations,
such as court-involved youth. Yet despite differences, these programs
shared some specific characteristics. For example, all of the programs
we reviewed were created to meet the needs of local youth such as
addressing youth homelessness and high school dropout rates. Most of
the programs had also operated for several years and provided ancillary
services, such as counseling, in addition to employment and education
assistance, to address the multiple needs of their youth participants.
While varying types of local programs serve disconnected youth, program
directors we interviewed reported similar elements of their programs
that are key in reconnecting youth to education and employment,
including effective staff and leadership, a holistic approach to
serving youth that addresses their multiple needs, specific program
design components, and a focus on empowering youth. Nearly all 39
program directors cited effective staff as a key element in building
supportive relationships with the youth in their programs. Many of the
youth we spoke with told us that they continued to participate in their
programs because the staff helped establish goals and provided a
positive and supportive environment. In addition, program leadership
also played a key role in maintaining successful programs and garnering
community support. To address the multiple needs of the youth
participants, to the extent possible, many programs approached the
youth's needs holistically, incorporating support services, such as
counseling, either on-site or in collaboration with other service
providers in the community. Many program directors also attributed
their success in working with youth to specific program design
components, such as experiential learning, which helps to engage and
retain youth by emphasizing concepts taught in the classroom with hands-
on learning opportunities through community service projects and on-
site training. Finally, program directors told us that their staff
empowers youth participants by setting high expectations, establishing
a clear code of conduct, and strengthening their leadership skills
through various program operation activities, such as outreach and
recruitment efforts.
Many program directors also reported common challenges in implementing
and operating their programs, specifically addressing the complex
circumstances of their programs' participants, gaps in services at the
community level, constraints on funding, and managing federal grants.
The complex issues experienced by the youth--such as mental health
issues and low academic skills--were frequently cited by program
directors as challenges they face in reconnecting youth to educational
and employment goals. For example, one program director told us the
youth in her program on average test at or below a sixth grade level in
reading and math, a fact that affects the program's ability to help
these youth achieve educational and employment outcomes. Program
directors we interviewed, regardless of their geographic location,
cited service gaps for disconnected youth in their communities,
particularly in the areas of mental health treatment, housing, and
transportation. Local programs we reviewed also reported that funding
constraints from all sources as well as unpredictable funding levels
have created significant challenges for them to keep pace with demand
for services and to plan for the future. Funding for many of the key
federal programs we reviewed that serve disconnected youth has remained
the same or declined since 2000. In addition, many of the directors of
programs receiving Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Youth funding--one of
the larger federal funding sources that can be used to assist
disconnected youth--noted that meeting certain youth performance goals
within contract time frames discouraged them from serving youth who may
need additional time and assistance to achieve specified outcomes.
Labor officials acknowledged that the workforce investment boards--
entities that contract with and oversee local programs--often issue 1-
year contracts that may unintentionally discourage programs from
working with lower-skilled youth to meet performance goals. Labor
officials noted that in most cases there is no requirement to achieve
performance goals within 1 year, and Labor's intent is for workforce
investment boards to develop longer-term contracts to help programs
serve hard-to-employ youth. Labor has provided limited technical
assistance and is considering issuing guidance on this issue, but has
not established a time frame to do so. Labor officials also said that
anticipated changes in federal performance goals may help to address
this issue by better capturing improvements made by youth at all skill
levels. Last, many local programs faced challenges managing multiple
federal funding sources, such as working across varying eligibility and
reporting requirements. In recent years, at the federal level, existing
and new federal initiatives have intensified efforts to coordinate
federal youth programs and provide assistance to state and local youth-
serving programs, which may help to address some of the challenges
faced by local programs.
This report contains a recommendation to Labor to improve
implementation of the WIA Youth program by working with workforce
investment boards to better ensure they have the information and
guidance needed to develop and implement contracts that allow local
programs to serve youth who are in need of more assistance than others
while still achieving performance goals. We provided a draft of this
report to Labor, HHS, Justice, and Education for review and comment.
Labor agreed with our recommendation, indicating it will work with
workforce investment boards to identify constraints, issue guidance in
the spring of 2008 for the workforce investment system on developing
contracts with local service providers, and provide technical
assistance to support the implementation of the guidance. HHS provided
information about a Web site available to communities that we added to
the report. Labor, HHS, and Education provided technical comments that
we incorporated where appropriate. Justice had no comments on the draft
report.
Background:
While most youth successfully transition to adulthood, many youth
become disconnected from school and work, or social supports,[Footnote
3] and experience challenges in making this transition. Some of these
youth are more likely than others to remain low-income, to lose jobs
during economic downturns, and to engage in criminal activities,
antisocial behavior, and teenage parenting. No single estimate exists
on the total number of disconnected youth because of varying
definitions, distinct time periods from which data are drawn, and the
use of different data sources. However, researchers' estimates of the
number of disconnected youth range from 2.3 million to 5.2
million.[Footnote 4]
Disconnected youth encompass a broad population that may include high
school dropouts, homeless and runaway youth, incarcerated youth, or
youth who have aged out of the foster care system. Youth of different
races and ethnicities are represented among this youth population.
However, research studies show that African-American males constitute a
disproportionate share of the population. For example, many young
African-American males experience high incarceration rates, and African-
Americans are generally overrepresented in the child welfare and
juvenile justice systems.[Footnote 5] Many young women also become
disconnected to assume parenting responsibilities. In addition, the
risk of disconnection is particularly high among youth with emotional
disturbances and learning disabilities, many of whom have not mastered
basic literacy skills. These youth have higher dropout rates and poorer
employment outcomes than other youth.
To assist youth transitioning to adulthood, direct services are
provided at the local level with the support of federal, state, local,
and private funding sources. A range of local entities, such as
community-based organizations and charter schools, in urban and rural
communities nationwide, provide services to reconnect these youth to
education and employment.
Role of Federal Agencies in Assisting Local Efforts:
Multiple federal agencies play a role in providing funding and
assistance to local programs that serve disconnected youth. The White
House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth identified 12 federal agencies
that fund over 300 programs that assist local communities in serving
disadvantaged youth in some capacity. However, four agencies--the
Departments of Labor, HHS, Education, and Justice--play a primary role
and contain some of the largest youth-serving grant programs in terms
of funding.[Footnote 6]
Despite having distinct missions, these four agencies share the common
goal of reconnecting youth to education and the workforce, and each
works to accomplish this goal by administering multiple programs. (See
table 1 for a listing of key federal grant programs that serve
disconnected youth.)
* Labor's workforce programs provide funding for both workforce
training and education services for youth up to age 24, including youth
involved in the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems, school
dropouts, and homeless youth.
* HHS's grant programs serve runaway and homeless youth up to age 21 or
youth who have aged out of foster care or are likely to age out. These
grants fund local programs that have education and workforce
components, and also assist youth in connecting to housing and long-
term support networks.
* Education's various related grant programs focus on youth who are
homeless; neglected, delinquent, or at risk; out of school; or
incarcerated in a state prison within 5 years of release or parole
eligibility. The programs facilitate youths' enrollment and success in
school and vocational programs.
* Justice's grant programs serve those youth 17 and under who are
involved in or at risk of becoming involved in the juvenile justice
system. Grant programs administered by Justice aim to help youth make
the successful transition out of the juvenile justice system and on to
education and workforce pathways.
In total, these programs received over $3.7 billion in appropriated
funds in 2006. Labor's Job Corps program accounted for almost half--
$1.6 billion--of these appropriations, and its WIA Youth Activities
accounted for nearly $1 billion. Some of the programs serve a broad
subsection of youth, including some who may not be disconnected per our
definition, such as young adults over 24 and in-school youth. See
appendix III for more information on key federal grant programs'
eligibility criteria and purposes.
Table 1: Key Federal Grant Programs That Serve Disconnected Youth:
Agency or office: Department of Labor: Office of the Secretary;
Federal grant: Job Corps;
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $1,573.3.
Agency or office: Department of Labor: Employment and Training
Administration;
Federal grant: WIA Youth Activities;
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $940.5.
Agency or office: Department of Labor: Employment and Training
Administration;
Employment and Training Administration;
Federal grant: YouthBuild;
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $49.5.
Agency or office: Department of Labor: Employment and Training
Administration;
Federal grant: Youth Offender Grants;
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $49.1.
Agency or office: Department of Labor: Employment and Training
Administration;
Federal grant: Youth Opportunity (Funding ended in 2003);
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): Not applicable.
Agency or office: Department of HHS: Children's Bureau;
Federal grant: Chafee Foster Care Independence Program;
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $140.
Agency or office: Department of HHS: Family and Youth Services Bureau;
Federal grant: Runaway and Homeless Youth Program;
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $102.9.
Agency or office: Department of Education: Office of Vocational and
Adult Education;
Federal grant: Adult Education Basic Grants to States[A];
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $564.
Agency or office: Department of Education: Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools;
Federal grant: Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition
Training for Incarcerated Youth;
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $22.8.
Agency or office: Department of Education: Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education;
Federal grant: Education for Homeless Children and Youth--Grants for
States and Local Activities;
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $61.9.
Agency or office: Department of Education: Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education;
Federal grant: Title I-D Prevention and Intervention Programs for
Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or at Risk--Grants
for States and Localities;
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $49.8.
Agency or office: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention;
Federal grant: Part E Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising
New Initiatives and Programs;
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $106.
Agency or office: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention;
Federal grant: Title II B--State Formula Grants;
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $74.3.
Agency or office: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention;
Federal grant: Juvenile Accountability Block Grant;
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $46.4.
Agency or office: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention;
Federal grant: Title V Community Prevention Block Grants;
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $4.6.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[A] The Adult Education Basic Grants to States serves adults and out-
of-school youth ages 16 and older.
[End of table]
Federal youth-serving agencies distribute funds to locally operated
programs through varying mechanisms. Some programs first provide funds
to states, which are then passed to local units of government or
programs. For example, Justice awards formula grants to states that can
be used to fund projects for the development of more effective juvenile
delinquency programs and improved juvenile justice systems. Juvenile
justice specialists in each state administer the funding through
subgrants to units of local government or local private agencies in
accordance with legislative requirements. Similarly, Education, through
the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, Title II of WIA, awards
funds to local eligible providers through state education or labor
agencies. Much in the same way, Labor allocates WIA Title I funds to
states, which in turn distribute much of this money to their local
workforce investment boards.[Footnote 7] These boards then award
competitive contracts to youth providers. Other federal grants, such as
Labor's YouthBuild program and HHS's Transitional Living
Program[Footnote 8] are awarded through a competitive process in which
local organizations submit grant proposals directly to the federal
agencies.
Federal agencies also provide technical assistance and guidance to
local programs. For example, to support programs that receive WIA
funds, Labor provides online training courses through a contractor,
including Web-based, interactive seminars and tutorials. Labor also
provides targeted technical assistance to help local areas most in need
by assisting them in identifying and correcting issues that are
negatively affecting performance outcomes. Similarly, a training
provider and a technical assistance provider assist HHS's Transitional
Living Program grantees nationally by helping them to develop new
approaches to serving youth, access new sources of funding, and
establish linkages with other grantees that have similar issues and
concerns. These providers also track trends, identify and share best
practices, and sponsor conferences and workshops. To assist local
programs in identifying successful program models, Justice maintains a
database with information on evidence-based prevention programs that
serve at-risk and court-involved youth across the country.
All four federal agencies require local programs to report on their
progress with youth by collecting data on youth outcomes, such as
attainment of their General Educational Development (GED) credential or
job placement, and some of these outcomes are tied to financial
sanctions and incentives. For example, HHS requires Transitional Living
Program grantees to record each youth's living situation, physical and
mental health, and grade completed when the youth exits from the
program, among other data elements. Sometimes data must pass through an
intermediary agency such as a state education agency or local workforce
investment board, and these entities may require additional data from
programs for their own monitoring purposes. The federal programs
collect this information to monitor the progress toward goals, and to
ensure that local programs are serving the targeted population and
spending money appropriately. Federal agencies may also affect local
programs by setting specific penalties for programs or states that do
not meet certain goals or benchmarks. These mechanisms are intended to
encourage a high level of performance and accountability. For example,
Labor negotiates performance goals with states for WIA Youth
Activities, and if states do not meet 80 percent of those goals for
more than 2 years in a row, monetary sanctions may be imposed. However,
Labor offers states technical assistance after the first year when
requested by states, and relatively few states have actually been
financially penalized. States are also eligible to receive performance
incentives if they exceed certain performance levels.
Local Programs We Reviewed Differed in Their Funding Sources and
Program Structure, yet Shared Some Characteristics:
The 39 local programs we reviewed received funding from a range of
government and private sources, and differed in their program
structure, yet shared some specific characteristics.[Footnote 9] The
programs we reviewed received funding from federal, state, local, and
private sources, and all but 6 programs received some federal funding.
Some federal funding sources required programs to follow a specific
model or offer a standard set of services, while others allowed
programs to use funding more flexibly. The programs also varied in
their program structure. For example, some were community-based
organizations that provided services on a daily basis, some were
charter schools, and some offered residential living. Within these
different program structures, some programs also targeted their efforts
to specific youth subpopulations, such as court-involved youth. Yet
despite these differences, programs shared some characteristics. For
example, all of the programs we reviewed were created to meet the needs
of local youth such as addressing youth homelessness and high school
dropout rates. Most of the programs had also operated for several
years, and provided ancillary services in addition to employment and
educational assistance to address the multiple needs of their youth
participants.
Programs Received Funding from Federal, State, Local, and Private
Sources:
The 39 programs we reviewed received funding from a variety of sources,
including federal, state, local, and private sources. Eleven of these
programs reported that their funding primarily comes from federal
sources, and nearly half received a combination of federal, state,
local, and private funding. All but 6 of the programs in our review
received some federal funding. Figure 1 summarizes the sources of
funding for the local programs we reviewed.
Figure 1: Primary Sources of Funding for the 39 Programs We Reviewed:
This figure is a horizontal bar graph showing primary sources of
funding for the 39 programs we reviewed. The X axis represents number
of local programs, while the Y axis represents source of funding.
Mainly or all federal: 11;
Mainly or all state: 4;
Mainly or all local: 3;
Mainly or all private: 3;
Combination of federal state, local and private: 18.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of self-reported information provided by 39
program directors.
[End of figure]
In some cases, federal funding sources may require programs to follow a
specific model or offer a standard set of services, and in other cases
federal funding can be used more flexibly. For example, all of Labor's
Job Corps centers feature campus-like settings with youth housed in
dormitories and a similar model for guidance and support at all sites
to help youth achieve long-term employment. Similarly, HHS's
Transitional Living Program grantees are required to offer a specific
set of services, either directly or by referral, to youth in their
programs, including instruction in budgeting, housekeeping, menu
planning, food preparation, and parenting. By contrast, Education's
Adult Education Grants, which serve both adults and out-of-school youth
ages 16 and older, support workplace literacy services, GED
instruction, family literacy services, or English-language learning
programs and can be delivered by public schools, community colleges,
libraries, or other providers.
The 39 Programs We Reviewed Were Structured Differently to Provide
Employment and Educational Services to Youth:
The 39 programs we reviewed structured their services to youth in
different ways. For example, some programs were community organizations
that provided specific training for youth at their organization during
the day. Some were established as charter schools, and some were
residential programs, most often providing transitional housing to
homeless and/or runaway youth. Many of the programs were a combination
of these different approaches. For example, one charter school also
provided residential facilities for youth. Another program with a
primary focus on providing employment opportunities to youth also had a
charter school on the premises. Depending in part on the structure of
the program, the programs varied in size, length of involvement for
youth, and the extent of follow-up they conducted with exiting
participants.
Several of the programs we reviewed were community organizations that
worked to improve the employment outcomes of youth by helping them to
gain the skills needed to be successful in the workplace. They
generally provided a range of employment training opportunities to
youth during the day, such as teaching youth interviewing techniques,
and how to develop a résumé and work in a team environment. Some
programs provided vocational training to youth participants in certain
industries, such as construction or health care, to teach work skills.
To the extent possible, some programs also provided youth with on-the-
job training by placing them in internships and employment
opportunities. In addition to employment training and placement,
several of the programs also assisted youth in meeting their
educational goals by providing them with opportunities to earn a GED
credential or high school diploma either on-site or in collaboration
with other organizations in the community. Figure 2 describes a
community organization we visited in Boston that works to improve
employment outcomes for youth.
Figure 2: Illustration of a Community Organization in Boston,
Massachusetts:
This figure is an textual description of a community organization in
Boston, Massachusetts.
Youth Opportunity Boston (Boston, Massachusetts):
Established in 1997, Youth Opportunity (YO) Boston is a community-based
organization that helps court-involved youth between the ages of 14 and
24. With multiple challenges and many barriers to helping youth achieve
immediate success, YO Boston‘s service population is among the most
difficult to serve. Many of the youth are high school dropouts, have
spent time in detention facilities, and lack the basic skills needed
for entry-level employment, and more than 80 percent are involved with
gangs. The program was initially funded by Labor‘s Youth Opportunity
demonstration grant. However, this grant ended in 2005. Currently, the
program is funded by state and local funding sources. At the time of
our review, the program served about 600 court-involved youth on an
annual basis and employed 15 permanent staff and 17 temporary staff.
Staff meet with youth while they are still in detention facilities to
develop a relationship and make a plan for their re-entry back into the
community. Youth admitted in the program are provided with a range of
services, including employment training, case management, and
educational preparation. Youth also participate in YO Boston‘s
Transitional Employment Services program”a multitiered, subsidized
employment program”that places youth ingroup ’team-based work“ with
various community partners. Youth are then placed in internships with
nonprofits and small companies that may hire the youth and pay their
wages. Some of the group projects that youth have participated in
include working at a nonprofit that provides clothing and goods to
children in foster care, painting a stadium, landscaping public land,
and producing a newspaper for the program. During our visit to the
program, we observed a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) course
taught to youth by the city‘s emergency medical services and police
departments. These youth were being trained in this because they are
often the first individuals at a violent crime scene. This also gives
youth the opportunity to positively contribute in the community. Most
youth stay in the program for a minimum of 18 to 24 months. Though
challenging because of the transient population served,the program does
follow up quarterly with youth for up to 2 years after they exit the
program through phone calls and home visits.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO based on information from Youth Opportunity Boston.
[End of figure]
Several of the programs were established as charter schools or
nontraditional schools, often referred to as "alternative education
schools," to assist youth who have dropped out of traditional public
schools. These programs typically allowed youth to learn in a small
classroom-based setting. Some of these programs were selective and
required youth to test at certain grade levels or have a certain amount
of credits earned before they can be admitted into the program, and
generally had a focus on academic and vocational education. Youth
typically spent part of their time attending academic classes, such as
math or reading classes, to achieve basic academic skills so they can
pass the GED exam or earn a high school diploma. In addition to these
academic classes, youth typically attended vocational classes to learn
work skills and specific trades. To facilitate learning outside of the
classroom, some of these schools provided youth with internships or
employment opportunities in the community, or allowed youth to
participate in service projects. Figure 3 describes a charter school we
visited in Washington, D.C.
Figure 3: Illustration of a Charter School in Washington, D.C.
This figure is a textual description of a charter school in Washington,
D.C.
See Forever Foundation‘s Maya Angelou Public Charter School(Washington,
D.C.)
The See Forever Foundation was founded in 1997, and a year later it
established the Maya Angelou Public Charter School for youth between
the ages of 14 and 17 who have not succeeded in traditional schools. In
particular, Maya Angelou Public Charter School helps to develop the
academic, social, and employment skills youth need to build rewarding
lives and promote positive change in their communities. The school,
funded by local government and private funding sources, has four
campuses”two for high school students, one for middle school students,
and one at the Oak Hill Academy, a long-term secure facility for . For
the 2007-2008 school year, Maya Angelou Public Charter School serves
approximately 475 students at its four campuses and employs 125 staff
to work with these youth. At least half of these youth may be low-
income, involved in the juvenile justice or foster care systems, in
need of special education services, or may have failed school at one
point in time.
The formal school day begins at 9:00 a.m. and runs until 4:30 p.m. The
program offers after-school academic enrichment activities, vocational
programs, and recreational programs until 7:15 p.m. 4 days a week. Over
200 tutors in the community come to the school campuses 3 days a week
to provide one-on-one tutoring to students. Maya Angelou Public charter
School high school campuses release students early on Wednesdays to
allow them to participate in paid internships. The school provides
students with a minimum of 1 hour of group counseling each week to help
them address barriers to their academic success.Gender-segregated,
group-based residences are available during the school week to
approximately 23 students who have experienced obstacles in their
school attendance,including chronic truancy and difficult situations at
home. The length of enrollment varies, but as of this year, youth can
be admitted to the school as young as 6th grade, and attend classes on
the various campuses for up to 7 years. Last year, 80 percent of 9th to
12th graders at the high school operated at the 6th grade level or
below. While students work at their , the school aims to accelerate
performance with the hope of moving students through as many as two
grade levels each year. Advancement is based on academic proficiency
and the speed at which the students are able to achieve their
objectives.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO based on information from Maya Angelou Public Charter
School.
[End of figure]
Many of the programs we reviewed provided residential living
accommodations and services to youth to help them develop the skills
necessary to transition to independence. Many of these programs were
transitional living programs that served runaway and/or homeless youth.
Living accommodations for youth in transitional living programs
typically vary and can include group homes, maternity group homes, or
apartments that are supervised by staff. Several of these programs were
small, with fewer than 20 youth residents. Some programs were
structured and established ground rules that participants must follow.
To address the multiple needs of these youth, these programs generally
offered a range of services, including educational opportunities, such
as GED preparation, post secondary training, or vocational education;
and basic life skills building, such as budgeting and housekeeping. The
length of time youth participants stayed in a program varied; some
youth stayed on average 4 months, while others stayed a year and a half
or longer, depending on their needs and certain eligibility
criteria.[Footnote 10] Figure 4 describes a transitional living program
we visited in Portland, Oregon. In addition, one residential program we
reviewed was targeted to court-involved youth. Labor's Job Corps
program also provided residential facilities to youth in that program.
Figure 4: Illustration of a Transitional Living Program in Portland,
Oregon:
The figure is a textual description of a transitional living program in
Portland, Oregon.
Janus Youth Programs Willamette Bridge House (Portland, Oregon)Janus
Youth Programs created the Willamette Bridge House, a transitional
living program, in1987 to provide stable housing for homeless youth
between the ages 16 and 20 who were not in foster care or some other
system. The program is funded through grants provided by HHS and the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, in addition to other
federal,state, local, and private funding sources. The program works
with 7 youth at any given time,and employs 6 full-time staff working
with these youth. In addition to the 7 youth residing in the Willamette
Bridge House, the program also works with 15 to 20 youth at any given
time who are transitioning into their own apartments and need the
program‘s help with basic fees,such as security and utility deposits.
The youth served by the program include court and/or gang-involved
youth, high school dropouts, pregnant or parenting youth, and other
youth subpopulations.
To determine which youth will be accepted into the program, staff
assess each young person‘s motivation to get off the streets. Once in
the program, youth are required to fulfill 42 hours of work each week,
which can include basic education, GED preparation, employment, or any
other activities agreed to with their case manager. The program
provides a range of services:individualized case management, parenting
classes, budgeting assistance, job and life skills training, basic food
shopping and preparation, and a savings plan. Youth can stay in the
program up to 18 months. While in the program, youth and staff work
together to secure stable, permanent housing options upon exit from the
program. The program conducts formal follow-up with participants 6 and
12 months after they exit.
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Within these different program structures, some of the programs we
reviewed targeted their efforts to specific youth subpopulations. For
example, a few programs provided support to youth aging out of the
foster care system, who typically lack social supports, to help them
make a successful transition to adulthood and self-sufficiency. These
programs may offer a range of support services, such as food and
housing assistance, educational opportunities, and advocacy. Other
programs worked to improve the outcomes of court-involved youth. Some
of these programs varied in structure and approach to working with
youth. For example, one program operating a juvenile residential
facility offered youth vocational education and life skills training,
as well as a full range of academic courses and diploma options. Other
programs provided court-involved youth with on-the-job training through
their vocational curricula and service projects.
Despite Different Approaches to Serving Youth, Local Programs Shared
Some Specific Characteristics:
Despite these differences, the 39 local programs we reviewed shared
some characteristics. All of the programs we reviewed were created to
meet the needs of local youth, such as addressing youth homelessness
and high school dropout rates. For example, one program was started by
an individual seeking to assist high school dropouts in her community
by allowing youth to complete their GED while acquiring construction
skills. Another program providing employment training and placement to
youth was started by a local police officer who wanted to help young
men returning to the community from jail obtain support services and
the skills needed to achieve self-sufficiency. Most of these programs
were well established, with many providing services to youth for at
least 10 years. Slightly less than half of the programs had 20 years or
more of experience in assisting youth, and relatively few were newly
established with less than 5 years of experience. In addition, most
programs provided services, such as counseling or housing assistance,
to their youth participants directly or through referrals to community
service providers.
Directors of the 39 Local Programs Cited Similar Key Elements in
Reconnecting Youth to Educational and Employment Goals:
While varying types of programs serve disconnected youth, directors of
the 39 local programs we reviewed identified similar key elements of
their programs that assist them in reconnecting youth to educational
and employment goals. These include employing effective staff and
leadership to build strong relationships with youth and the community,
addressing youth needs in a holistic manner, incorporating a variety of
specific program design components, and empowering youth to achieve
their goals. Our findings on key elements in reconnecting youth are
generally in line with those cited in literature on youth and by other
experts on youth issues whom we interviewed. These elements and key
components are shown in figure 5 and are discussed in more detail in
the following sections.
Figure 5: Key Elements of Local Programs Cited by Program Directors in
Reconnecting Youth to Education and Employment:
This figure is a chart with illustration showing key elements of local
programs cited by 39 program directors in reconnecting youth to
education and employment.
Staff and leadership:
* Building strong relationships with youth;
* Garner community support.
Holistic comprehensive services:
* Counseling;
* Health services;
* Child care;
* Housing and food assistance.
Program design components:
* Experiential learning;
* Self-paced curricula;
* Incentives.
Youth empowerment:
* High expectations;
* Youth involvement;
* Clear code of conduct.
Goal: Successful transition by youth to adulthood and self-sufficiency
through education and employment.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by 39 local program
directors: Images (Art Explosion).
[End of figure]
Staff and Leadership Are Key in Building Relationships with Youth and
Community Partners:
Nearly all of the 39 directors cited the importance of staff in
building strong relationships with youth to help them achieve their
goals. For some youth, their interactions with staff may be among the
first positive experiences they had with adults. Many youth we spoke
with across programs agreed that staff were a primary reason they
continued in the program. For example, one youth we spoke with told us
she continued to participate in her program because the staff helped
her establish goals and provided a supportive environment. In many
cases, the relationships between staff and youth participants continue
well after these youth complete the program, providing an ongoing
source of support to the participants. Figure 6 depicts photos of staff
working with youth participants at two programs we visited. Directors
reported that they have developed a range of strategies to retain
staff, which included providing competitive pay and benefits. One
director provides training to reduce burnout and help her staff feel
more confident and competent. Others said that they maintain a low
caseload for case managers, allow staff to have input in program
development, and conduct recognition ceremonies to award staff for
their accomplishments.
Figure 6: Staff Working with Youth Participants at Various Work Sites:
This figure is a combination of two photographs showing staff working
with youth participants at various work sites. One is a Project
CRAFT/Nashville, Tennessee) and the other is of Civicorps Schools
(Oakland, California).
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Program leadership also played a key role in maintaining successful
programs and garnering community support that leads to funding and
other resources. The vision of certain program directors helped
programs to continually innovate to meet the needs of youth in their
communities. For some programs, the same leadership had been in place
since their inception, a fact that has contributed toward their
continued stability. Directors had built strong relationships with a
range of community stakeholders, including mayors, city departments,
local businesses, employers, and clergy. For example, two youth-serving
programs reported that they received funding from their mayor and city
after the federal Youth Opportunity grants were eliminated, a fact that
enabled them to continue to provide services to youth. Additionally,
programs established relationships with service providers in the
community to gain access to a range of educational or employment
opportunities for youth. For example, one program partnered with a
local community college program to provide skills training and
certification for entry-level jobs. Other programs partnered with
employers to provide their youth participants with employment
placements, internships, and job shadowing opportunities. One director
working with court-involved youth noted that these relationships were
critical to finding employment for their youth participants with
criminal records. Program reputation, longevity of the program and its
staff, and ability of the management to plan for the future and attract
relevant stakeholders were cited as factors helping programs to
coordinate efforts within their communities.
Directors Emphasized the Importance of Addressing Youth Needs in a
Holistic Manner:
To address the multiple needs of participants, many program directors
told us that, to the extent possible, their programs took a holistic
approach to providing comprehensive support services to youth either on-
site or in collaboration with other service providers in the community.
(Fig. 7 illustrates the range of services one local Job Corps center
offers youth participants in addition to educational and employment
assistance.) In one program, on-site case managers provided individual
counseling to youth and referred these youth to providers in the
community for additional services, such as substance abuse and mental
health services, if needed. Another director of a program working with
runaway and homeless youth said the program provides a continuum of
services, including on-site health services, such as psychological
assessments and human immunodeficiency virus testing. Other medical
services were provided through a partnership with the local public
health department.
Figure 7: Example of a Local Job Corps Center's Holistic Approach to
Providing Comprehensive Support Services:
This figure is a chart with illustrations showing example of local job
corps center's holistic approach to providing comprehensive support
services.
Hawaii Job Corps:
* Work based learning and career technical training;
* Academic programs and support;
* Child care;
* Residential living;
* Health services;
* Counseling services and career preparation.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of the Hawaii Job Corps Center‘s support services;
Images (Art Explosion).
[End of figure]
Specific Program Design Components Help Programs to Engage and Retain
Young People:
Program directors incorporated a variety of specific design components
to help engage and retain youth, such as experiential learning
opportunities, engagement in civic activities, self-paced curricula and
flexible schedules, and financial and nonfinancial incentives. Many
program directors told us that they incorporated experiential learning
opportunities, which provide youth with hands-on learning opportunities
and on-site training, to emphasize concepts used in the classroom or to
teach work skills. For example, one director of a program that teaches
various trades to court-involved youth allows young people to apply
their academic skills to real world situations. Youth receiving
training in construction, for example, can apply math concepts they
learn in the classroom to construction projects in the community. One
young person participating in this program said that he appreciated
this applied setting and is more motivated to learn math skills.
Through such on-the-job training, youth also learn how to take
directions from supervisors and work as part of a team, skills that are
necessary in the work environment. Figure 8 depicts a photo of a local
program's workshop that trains out-of-school youth in construction.
Figure 8: Workshop at a Local Program That Trains Out-of-School Youth
in Construction:
This figure is a photograph of a workshop at a local program that
trains out-of-school youth in construction. The workshop pictured is
the Youth Employment Partnership, Inc. in Oakland, California.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Directors reported that civic engagement provides youth with an
opportunity to give back to the community and learn how to get involved
with government and community activities. One director of a program
serving court-involved youth said that his curriculum incorporated a
restorative justice framework whereby youth participate in community
activities to make up for their negative behavior. Some of these
community service activities included building a deck for a local youth-
serving organization or constructing homes for low-income families.
Other programs arranged local field trips to expose youth to government
and community activities. For example, one educational and occupational
training program organized field trips to city hall, cultural events,
and museums to teach youth about various community activities. A young
person who attended such an event at the local city hall said the
experience taught him about public hearings and how to be an advocate
for issues that affect him.
To accommodate the various needs of their youth participants, many
programs employed an individualized or self-paced curriculum and a
flexible class schedule. For example, one educational and occupational
training program reported that it tailored students' academic course of
study to their skill level through more individualized attention. One
young person, who dropped out of school because the slow pace had left
him unchallenged, told us that he became re-engaged in school work
through the program's self-paced curriculum. To further accommodate the
needs of their youth participants, such as parenting or employment,
programs provided flexibility to their youth in developing class
schedules.
Over half of the 39 programs used incentives to retain youth or
encourage positive behavior. These incentives may include industry-
related certifications upon graduation, transportation vouchers, rent
subsidies, and educational scholarships to attend college. In
particular, a few housing or foster care programs provide youth with
housing subsidies and help them to set up personal savings accounts to
save for future expenses, such as buying a car or placing a deposit on
an apartment. A few programs had coordinated with the federal
AmeriCorps program to provide educational scholarships to reward youth
for their service in the program.[Footnote 11] Other programs have
established a behavioral management system that incorporates incentives
to reward youth for positive behavior. For example, one program allowed
youth to earn points for maintaining a clean room, arriving on time to
school, and not being involved in negative incidents. These points can
then be traded in for items valuable to the youth participants, such as
compact discs.
Programs Empower Youth by Setting Expectations and Strengthening Their
Leadership Skills:
Youth Development Approach:
According to HHS‘s National Clearinghouse on Families and Youth, the
youth development approach, developed over 30 years ago by researchers
and practitioners, emphasizes providing services and opportunities to
support young people to succeed and contribute as adults by
incorporating four components:
* a sense of competence;
* a sense of usefulness;
* a sense of belonging, and:
* a sense of power.
A number of federal agencies, foundations, and national organizations
utilize this framework in their initiatives. For example, HHS‘s Family
and Youth Services Bureau, one of the federal agencies in our review,
has funded demonstration projects at the state level to encourage
collaborative approaches to youth development. For more information,
see National Clearinghouse on Families and YouthWeb site at [hyperlink,
http://www.ncfy.com].
Program directors reported that they empower youth by setting high
expectations, establishing a clear code of conduct, and strengthening
their leadership skills. Many directors told us that they use an
approach that focuses on youths' capacities, strengths, and
developmental needs rather than solely on their problems and risks--
often referred to as the "youth development approach" by researchers
and practitioners. According to one director, youth have been
accustomed to interacting with people and systems that focus on their
deficits rather than their talents and strengths, leading them to lack
confidence in their abilities. By setting high expectations, staff
demonstrate confidence in youth, and in turn some youth will rise to
those expectations. Many programs told us that they balance these high
expectations with a clear code of conduct that provides youth with
guidelines about the consequences of their behaviors.
To strengthen youths' leadership skills and improve program services,
many program directors reported involving youth in a variety of program
operation activities. Many programs involved youth in the process to
hire new staff or their outreach and recruitment efforts for new
participants. One program encouraged youth to attend advisory board
meetings once a quarter to talk about what is working and additional
needs. Other programs have established youth councils to help set goals
for the program and solicit input from other youth participants. In
addition, several directors noted that they hired former youth
participants as staff. One director from a program that serves foster
care youth said that these youth workers are key because they can
relate to other youths' circumstances and can teach them conflict
resolution and coping skills.
Directors We Interviewed Cited Service Gaps, Funding Constraints, and
Federal Grant Management Challenges That Hindered Their Efforts;
Federal Coordination Efforts Under Way May Help Address Some of These
Issues:
Program directors reported challenges addressing some of the issues
faced by youth in their programs as well as gaps in certain services,
such as housing and employment opportunities for youth. Most directors
reported that funding constraints from federal and other sources
challenge program stability and efforts to serve more youth. Funding
for many of the key federal programs we reviewed that serve
disconnected youth has remained the same or declined since 2000. In
addition, many of the 15 directors with federal WIA Youth funding noted
that the need to meet certain WIA Youth performance goals within short-
term time frames discouraged them from serving youth that may need more
time and assistance to achieve specified outcomes. Labor officials
acknowledged that states and workforce investment boards sometimes
issue 1-year contracts with local programs that unintentionally
discourage the programs from working with lower-skilled youth and that
the boards may need more assistance from Labor to address this issue.
Regarding local programs receiving funding from more than one federal
source, several directors cited varying grant requirements that pose a
challenge for local programs to reconcile. In recent years at the
federal level, existing and new federal initiatives have intensified
efforts to coordinate federal youth programs and provide assistance to
state and local youth-serving efforts, which may help to address some
challenges faced by local programs.
Programs Constrained by Circumstances and Needs of Some Youth and Gaps
in Services at the Community Level:
Most directors cited the complex nature of the youth populations they
serve and issues facing youth at the community level as key challenges
to successfully reconnecting youth to education and
employment.[Footnote 12] These challenges are further complicated by a
gap in needed services at the local level.[Footnote 13] Figure 9
identifies the top gaps in services most frequently cited by local
program directors.
Figure 9: Gaps in Services for Disconnected Youth Reported by 39
Program Directors:
This figure is a horizontal bar graph showing gaps in services for
disconnected youth reported by 39 program directors. The X axis
represents the number of local program directors reporting gap in
services, and the Y axis represents service gaps.
Housing: 24;
Mental health services: 22;
Transportation: 17;
Alternative education of GED training: 13;
Job training: 10;
Substance abuse treatment: 9;
Social supports: 9;
Child care: 7.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis based on interviews with 39 local program
directors.
Note: Directors identified the top three services they believed were
insufficient or lacking in their communities. These data only include
services that were mentioned by more than three directors.
[End of figure]
A large number of the program directors reported that their youth have
mental health issues, and several said these issues may be undiagnosed
or untreated before entering the program, and that their communities
lack adequate mental health services. Directors cited trauma,
depression, and attachment disorders as examples of the mental health
issues faced by some of the youth. Several directors said that these
mental health issues were undiagnosed prior to the youths' involvement
with their programs. As one director stated, the complex family and
living situations many of these youth come from and the long-term
effects of abuse and neglect experienced by some of these youth need to
be addressed in order for youth to have success in reaching employment
or educational goals. However, more than half of the program directors
cited a lack of mental health treatment as a major gap in their
communities. Most often, directors attributed this gap in mental health
services to inadequate funds. Some directors also attributed the gap to
a misperception of the need for mental health treatment. For example,
one director believed that the mental health services these youth need
to transition to self-sufficiency have not been adequately understood
or addressed by policymakers. At the same time, a few of the program
directors also noted that youth themselves are unaware that they need
intensive counseling and resist pursuing mental health treatment due to
the associated stigma.
Some programs also reported that a number of their youth have learning
disabilities, and that these may have been undiagnosed by the school
system. For example, one alternative education program stated that in
2002, nearly 45 percent of its students were diagnosed with learning or
emotional disabilities. Of these students, only half had been diagnosed
before coming to their program. Many programs reported that the low
educational attainment of the youth slow their efforts to achieve
educational and employment outcomes. According to one director, high
school-aged youth are frustrated when they test at a seventh grade
level. Another director reported that, on average, her youth test at a
fifth to sixth grade level in reading and a fourth to fifth grade level
in math. She noted that her program's staff must work with youth who
are at a tremendous skills deficit to achieve outcomes.
Violence and drugs at the community level create additional challenges
to youth efforts to successfully complete their programs. A large
number of programs we reviewed reported that their communities
struggled with gangs, violence, or drugs, which may affect youths'
success. Due to gangs and violence, one director reported that young
people in the program face peer pressure that may detract from their
efforts to remain in the program. Additionally, youth may not feel safe
traveling to the program, or may have trouble focusing when violence
affects their family or friends. One program that works predominantly
with youth involved in gangs reported that in a 2 ˝-year time frame, 26
of their youth participants were murdered. This program and other
programs have developed close relationships with law enforcement
officials to keep abreast of gang activity to ensure the youths' safety
and generally to serve youth in such communities better. A number of
directors also reported high levels of drug activity in their
communities, and many reported substance abuse issues among the youth
they serve. However, program directors also cited gaps in substance
abuse services. One program director said that 80 percent of youth in
his program are in need of substance abuse services, and that these
services were less available for his participants than in previous
years.
A majority of the 39 directors cited a lack of affordable housing as a
top challenge for youth who are trying to become self-sufficient. Many
directors discussed a lack of affordable long-term housing, and several
referred to a lack of temporary housing or shelters for youth. Some
directors attributed the high cost of housing to revitalization efforts
in certain areas, and some believed that policymakers lack the
political will to focus on affordable housing needs. Directors reported
that wages for this population are low, which creates challenges for
their youth participants to afford housing. In one community, the
program director reported a 3-year waiting list for low-income housing.
Certain restrictions that affect specific subpopulations of
disconnected youth further limit housing options. For example,
landlords are reluctant to lease apartments to youth who are
unemployed, have been involved in the criminal justice system, or do
not have a parent to cosign a lease. In addition, some programs also
expressed concern that there are not enough shelters available for
homeless youth.
The affordable housing challenge is further complicated by employment
challenges. Several directors cited a lack of jobs that pay a
sufficient wage and a reluctance by employers to hire certain
subpopulations of youth as major challenges facing youth in their
community. According to one transitional living program, the lack of
low-skilled jobs that pay enough to meet living expenses, coupled with
rising housing costs, makes it nearly impossible for a young person to
transition to a stable living situation upon leaving the program. In
addition, a number of programs working with court-involved youth
discussed the challenge these youth face obtaining employment because
they have a criminal record. One program director working with ex-
offender youth said these youth are aware of the limited employment
opportunities they face and some of them lose hope in their ability to
secure a job. He further noted that it is hard to keep them motivated
and feeling positive given these constraints, even with stipends for
academic and employment training.[Footnote 14]
Job opportunities for youth may also be limited by transportation
challenges. Many program directors in both rural communities and urban
centers cited challenges with the accessibility or affordability of
transportation that affect youth access to opportunities, especially
employment. Directors cited the high cost of public transportation as a
barrier for the youth in their programs. One director of a program in
an urban community that places youth in employment said some jobs
require youth to go on multiple interviews and the youth do not have
the money to pay for transportation to and from these interviews. The
program tries to help youth with the transportation barrier, but the
amount of funding it can allocate toward transportation is determined
by its funders. Another program that trains youth for jobs in the
construction field noted that a lot of the construction jobs are in
suburban areas, which are not well serviced by public transportation.
We were told of young people taking multiple buses and many hours to
travel to a workplace, impeding their ability to sustain employment.
Funding Constraints from Government and Other Sources Challenge Program
Stability and Efforts to Serve More Youth:
Local programs told us that funding constraints from all sources have
created significant challenges in working with their disconnected youth
populations. Difficulty with funding was rated as the number one
overall challenge faced by local programs, and some program directors
noted that their funding was either declining or not keeping pace with
inflation or with demand for their services. Funding for 10 of the 15
key federal programs we reviewed has remained the same or declined
since 2000. WIA Youth funds have been reduced from a high of $1.13
billion in fiscal year 2001 to $940 million in fiscal year 2007. This
represents a decline of about 27 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars.
While overall Transitional Living Program funding increased in fiscal
year 2002 to support a greater number of programs, the amount available
each year to individual local programs --capped at $200,000--has not
changed since 1992. One program director explained that considering
increases in the costs of operation, this amount funds only part of one
staff rather than three as in previous years. Despite these reductions,
many of the programs we spoke with emphasized that the demand for their
services has continued. For example, more than half of the programs
reported having a waiting list of youth in need of their services
ranging from 10 to 1,000 youth, and high school dropout rates in many
communities remain high. The Annie E. Casey Foundation found that
between 2000 and 2005, an additional 626,000 youth between the ages of
18 and 24 became disconnected from school and work, based on U.S.
Census Bureau statistics.
Program directors also stressed that the unpredictability of federal
grant money has made it difficult to run their programs. In particular,
most of the program directors who received Transitional Living Program
funds told us that one of their greatest concerns for this grant source
was its unpredictability and a perception that HHS does not take into
consideration enough the experience of current grantees. HHS officials
said that the agency used to award extra points to current grantees of
the program, a practice it stopped a few years ago to allow new
organizations to have greater opportunity. They also acknowledged that
this is a highly competitive grant and that there are likely many
deserving programs they are unable to support, given the budget. Other
programs noted that the short-term nature of some grants made it
difficult to predict how long they could sustain some of their
programming and plan for the long term. Program directors we
interviewed stressed the importance of predictable and long-term
funding commitments for working with disconnected youth who in
particular require sustained services and support during precarious
transitional years. While most of the programs we reviewed received
some federal dollars, those that relied more heavily on private, state,
or local funding expressed similar concerns with the limited amount, as
well as the consistency, of funds available for the populations of
youth with which they work.
In response to these funding constraints, program directors reported
that they had modified or limited their services. One program
eliminated its GED instruction in response to decreases in WIA Youth
funds, and another reduced youth served from 1,500 participants in 2000
to a current capacity of 300 because of similar reductions. Some
program directors told us that the amount of funding they received
limited their ability to follow up with youth after they complete the
program or to conduct program evaluations to improve services. Program
directors told us that funding levels also affected their ability to
attract and retain staff. In fact, one Transitional Living Program
director told us that upon leaving the program, some of the youth the
program serves found jobs that paid higher wages than those of the
program staff, a fact that affected the program's ability to retain
staff.
Performance Contracts Associated with Some Federal Funding May Have
Unintended Consequences:
Many of the 15 local program directors who received WIA Youth funding
reported that meeting the performance goals for which they were held
accountable within short-term contracts discouraged them from working
with low-skilled youth who may need increased time and assistance to
reach specified outcomes, such as employment or educational
gains.[Footnote 15] Several local program directors said their WIA
contracts are for 1 year, and that the need to achieve outcome measures
often based on only 12 months of service provided a disincentive to
serve those youth with the greatest challenges.[Footnote 16] Program
directors explained that youth entering their programs may have
multiple barriers, such as criminal backgrounds, limited reading
abilities, and lack of social support, and require a longer investment
in order to achieve positive outcomes than other youth. In order to
meet current federal performance goals, such as employment outcome
goals, within a 1-year period, some directors of the WIA-funded
programs reported that they only accept youth who test at least at a
certain grade level. One director explained that many employers will
not consider hiring young people who cannot read at least at a specific
grade level. In some areas, this can mean leaving behind a significant
number of youth who are out of school. One program director in
Baltimore told us that because of its policy to accept youth that test
at least at a seventh grade level, the program has to turn away 80
percent of youth who seek its services even though it has the capacity
to serve some of these youth.
Labor officials said they were aware that workforce investment boards,
which award contracts to local programs, have implemented local program
contracts in a way that may unintentionally discourage programs from
working with lower-skilled youth and have taken some initial steps to
address this issue. The officials acknowledged that 12 months is often
an inadequate time frame within which to ensure that youth will fulfill
education-and employment-related outcomes. Labor officials explained
that for all but one of the measures there is no requirement to achieve
performance goals within 1 year and workforce investment boards often
develop 1-year contracts despite Labor's intent for them to develop
longer-term contracts. Labor has taken some steps to address this
problem. For example, it is currently conducting some training for
workforce investment boards to explain the importance of a longer-term
investment in youth in order to reach outcomes. It has also, through a
national contractor, provided technical assistance on this issue to
some state and local workforce investment boards and youth programs.
However, it has not provided technical assistance more broadly on this
issue. Labor officials also told us they were considering issuing
guidance at some point in the future to help boards understand ways to
establish contracts to better ensure programs have incentives to work
with hard-to-employ youth, a population group Labor acknowledges is
important to serve. Labor officials said they have not yet established
a time frame for developing and issuing guidance on this.
Labor officials noted another development that may provide local youth-
serving programs more flexibility to serve youth at all skill levels.
As part of an Office of Management and Budget requirement for programs
across multiple agencies to report on uniform evaluation metrics, Labor
has adopted and implemented the three common performance measures for
youth employment and training programs developed by the Office of
Management and Budget. It asserts that these measures may better
capture improvements made by youth at all skill levels, instead of the
seven measures currently in statute, reducing the incentive for some
programs to select only higher-skilled youth. The three new performance
measures, referred to as the common measures, apply to youth of all
ages, and focus on literacy or numeracy gains as well as placement in
employment and education as outcomes, which may give more flexibility
to programs to work with youth at different levels. By contrast, the
current measures for older youth (aged 19 to 21) emphasize employment
outcomes, such as employment retention after 6 months. (See table 2.)
Labor uses data on performance measures that states collect from
service providers to track states' progress in meeting performance
goals. Labor officials told us that states must collect data for both
sets of measures until the new measures are established through law,
although some states have already started to work with the new
measures.[Footnote 17] For program year 2007, Labor reported that 22
states had waivers in place that allowed them to collect data for only
the three new common measures; 10 of these states were granted waivers
recently in program year 2006 and two of them in program year 2005.
While the new measures may give states more flexibility in how they
measure youths' progress, it may be too early to assess whether these
new measures have been incorporated into contracts with local programs
in ways that result in reduced incentives for programs to select higher-
performing youth.
Table 2: Existing and New Common Measures for WIA Youth Program:
Youth (ages 19 to 21);
WIA measures currently in statute: * Entered Employment Rate;
* Average earnings change in 6 months;
* Employment retention rate at 6 months;
* Entered employment/education/training and credential rate;
Common measures: * Placement in employment and education;
* Attainment of a degree or certificate;
* Literacy or numeracy gains.
Youth (ages 14 to 18);
WIA measures currently in statute: * Skill attainment rate;
* Diploma or equivalent attainment rate;
* Placement and retention in postsecondary education, advanced
training, or employment rate;
Common measures: * Placement in employment and education;
* Attainment of a degree or certificate;
* Literacy or numeracy gains.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor.
[End of table]
Federal Grant Requirements That Vary across Programs Can Pose
Challenges:
Local program directors that received multiple federal grants from
different agencies expressed difficulty in working across varying
reporting requirements, funding cycles, and eligibility requirements.
(See fig. 10.) To a lesser extent, these program directors also
experienced challenges working across varying program goals and sharing
information about their clients that participate in multiple federal
grants.
* Varying reporting requirements. Directors of 17 of the 19 local
programs we reviewed that received more than one federal grant stated
that reconciling varying reporting requirements presented at least some
challenge.[Footnote 18] One program director explained that each of the
program's federal funding sources has its own management information
system, but they all require similar information, causing staff to
spend a significant amount of time inputting nearly identical data
elements into separate data collection systems.
* Varying funding cycles. Fifteen program directors reported at least
some challenge in managing grants that span different funding cycles.
Even within the same federal agency, grants can have different fiscal
year schedules and different grant durations. For example, among the
large workforce programs, workforce investment boards often award 1-
year WIA contracts to local programs, and YouthBuild is now a 3-year
grant.[Footnote 19] Working across differing funding cycles and grant
years can make it difficult for programs to plan for the future.
* Differing eligibility requirements. Directors of 13 local programs
reported that they face challenges reconciling differing eligibility
requirements. For example, grants from HHS and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to support and house homeless youth use
different definitions of homelessness and varying age criteria, which
can make it difficult for a local program that depends on both sources
of funding. Some workforce grants fund youth less than 21 years of age
and others fund up to 24 years of age, making it especially challenging
for local programs to combine funding sources.
Figure 10: Programs Cite Multiple Challenges in Coordinating across
Federal Grant Programs:
This figure is a horizontal bar graph showing programs cite multiple
challenges in coordinating across federal grant programs. The X
represents the number of program directors who cite each challenge. The
Y axis represents challenges to coordinating multiple federal grants.
Varying reporting requirements;
Great or very great challenge: 10;
Moderate or some challenge: 7;
Little or no challenge: 2.
Varying funding cycles;
Great or very great challenge: 5;
Moderate or some challenge: 10;
Little or no challenge: 4.
Differing eligibility requirements;
Great or very great challenge: 4;
Moderate or some challenge: 9;
Little or no challenge: 5.
Varying program goals;
Great or very great challenge: 2;
Moderate or some challenge: 8;
Little or no challenge: 8.
Ability to share information on clients;
Great or very great challenge: 2;
Moderate or some challenge: 5;
Little or no challenge: 11.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis based on interviews with 39 local program
directors.
[End of figure]
To Address the Various Needs of Disconnected Youth, Federal Agencies
Have Intensified Efforts to Coordinate across Youth-Serving Programs:
Recognizing that services addressing the various needs of disconnected
youth fall under the jurisdictions of multiple agencies, federal
agencies have intensified efforts to coordinate across the array of
youth-serving programs. Our past work has highlighted the need for
federal collaboration given the multiple demands and limited resources
of the federal government.[Footnote 20] As we noted in our previous
work on multiple youth programs, enhanced coordination at the federal
level can lead to more efficient use of resources and a more integrated
service delivery approach at the local program level.[Footnote 21]
Related to disconnected youth in particular, the federal officials we
spoke with highlighted the ongoing coordination efforts of the
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(CCJJDP), led by Justice, and the Shared Youth Vision initiative, led
by Labor, among other collaborative efforts.
* The CCJJDP, which was authorized in 1974 by the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act, coordinates federal juvenile delinquency
programs. Among its responsibilities, the council examines how programs
can be coordinated among federal, state, and local governments to
better serve at-risk youth. The CCJJDP, which meets on a quarterly
basis, is composed of nine federal agency members, including those from
Education, Labor, and HHS, and nine nonfederal members, who are
juvenile justice practitioners. In recent years, the council has
broadened its focus to other at-risk youth and is seeking to implement
some of the 2003 White House Task Force recommendations, including the
following: (1) improving coordination of mentoring programs, (2)
developing a unified protocol for federal best practices
clearinghouses, (3) building a rigorous and unified disadvantaged youth
research agenda, (4) improving data collection on the well-being of
families, (5) increasing parents' involvement in federal youth
programs, (6) targeting youth in public care, (7) targeting youth with
multiple risk factors, and (8) expanding mentoring programs to special
target groups. A Justice official said one project under way involves
researching best practices for federal collaborative efforts to prepare
a tool kit to assist federal agencies in their ongoing youth
coordination efforts.
* The Shared Youth Vision initiative emerged in response to the 2003
White House Task Force recommendations, which cited a lack of
communication, coordination, and collaboration among federal agencies
that provide services to the nation's neediest youth, and out of the
CCJJDP. It involves officials from Labor, Education, HHS, Justice; the
Departments of Transportation, Agriculture, Housing and Urban
Development; the Corporation for National and Community Service; and
the Social Security Administration. Its mission is to serve as a
catalyst at the national, state, and local levels to strengthen
coordination, communication, and collaboration among youth-serving
agencies to support the neediest youth in their healthy transition to
adult roles. Labor officials we spoke with see this initiative as a way
to more holistically support youth who come to the attention of various
related social service systems, in order to reinforce the effectiveness
of each intervention. They also said that the initiative can help make
local youth programs more aware of other services available in their
communities, such as mental health or substance abuse treatment
services that youth may need. One senior HHS official noted that the
initiative can be a powerful way to extend federal partnerships into
communities, and another official observed that the initiative has led
to better coordination of resources among agencies for juvenile justice
programming, mentoring, and youth aging out of foster care. To date,
the initiative has sponsored several regional forums convening state-
and local-level officials from various agencies to share information
and discuss better ways to work together to serve youth. In response to
state interest in continuing these efforts, Labor awarded grants
ranging from $27,500 to $116,000 to 16 competitively selected states to
help the states develop strategic plans to connect their systems that
serve youth at the state and local levels. For example, Florida is
using this initiative to bring together the state Department of
Juvenile Justice, local school districts, and community-based
organizations to create a one-stop prevention and intervention system
for court-involved youth on probation.
* Several federal agencies have undertaken initiatives to improve
coordination among specific programs or programs serving specific
subpopulations. For example, Education and HHS are cosponsoring a 4-
year program to offer long-term support to youth with serious emotional
disorders and emerging serious mental illness. Through the Safe
Schools/Healthy Students Initiative, HHS, Education, and Justice are
collaborating to reduce violence and drug abuse in schools and
communities. Working through the CCJJDP, HHS's Family and Youth
Services Bureau and the Corporation for National and Community Service
(an independent federal agency) have instituted the Federal Mentoring
Council to coordinate mentoring efforts for disadvantaged youth across
eight federal agencies. In addition, since 2005, in an effort to
provide stronger support to local partnerships working with youth,
several federal agencies, including HHS, Labor, Education, and Justice,
have created a Web site that provides interactive tools to assist
communities to form effective partnerships, assess community assets,
map local and federal resources, and search for evidence-based programs
to meet the needs of youth, including disconnected youth.[Footnote 22]
In addition to these ongoing efforts, Congress in 2006 enacted
legislation creating the Federal Youth Development Council with the
task--within 2 years--of issuing final recommendations designed to lead
to improved coordination and assessment of federal youth programs.
However, the council has not been convened. The council is to include
members from HHS, Education, Labor, Justice, and several other federal
entities, as well as other members as appointed by the President, with
the Secretary of HHS serving as the chairperson. The authorizing
legislation provides for the council to terminate after meeting at
least quarterly for 2 years and issuing a final report. Council duties
include several related to finding ways to better facilitate the
coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness of federal programs and
promote high-quality research and evaluation of youth services and
supports. The final report is to include, among other items, an
assessment of the needs of youth, especially those in disadvantaged
situations, and of those who work with youth; a summary of a plan for
quantifiable goals and objectives for federal programs that assist
disadvantaged youth; and recommendations for ways to coordinate and
improve information sharing among the various federal programs and
agencies serving youth, as well as for ways to better integrate and
coordinate youth policies at all levels of government. The legislation
also specified that the council should coordinate its efforts with
existing interagency coordination entities in order to complement and
not duplicate efforts. Some assert that the council could reduce
duplication of effort by agencies and working at cross-purposes and
lead to a stronger emphasis at the federal level on youth development.
Funding was not appropriated to the council for fiscal years 2007 and
2008. HHS did not seek funding for the council in the fiscal year 2008
President's budget.[Footnote 23] HHS has said that the CCJJDP, of which
HHS is a member, has begun to address some of the objectives and goals
proposed for the council. In addition, on February 7, 2008, the
President issued an executive order to establish an Interagency Working
Group on Youth Programs. Under the order, HHS would lead this effort to
coordinate among relevant federal, private, and nongovernment entities;
facilitate the development of a federal Web site on youth; and
encourage high standards for assessing program impact.
Due to the relationships established through some of these ongoing
formal efforts, officials told us that they now more routinely talk to
their counterparts in other agencies. For example, Labor officials told
us that they now contact stakeholders in other agencies as a matter of
course and as issues arise, and that this practice marks a change from
prior years. Similarly, a Justice official stated that Justice staff
now consider contacting officials in other agencies to get their
expertise and input when awarding grants, recognizing that they are
serving some of the same populations. While officials spoke highly of
these coordination efforts, some officials pointed to the importance of
sustained attention at the appropriate levels to help ensure the
longevity of these efforts. More specifically, one official noted that
turnover in agency staff, especially among political appointees, can
hinder long-term progress and suggested that assigning high-level
career officials as point persons at each agency could be a way to
facilitate this coordination and strengthening existing coordinating
bodies.
Conclusions:
Preparing disconnected youth to become self-sufficient adults is an
important responsibility for all levels of government. The government
bears some of the costs for youth who have difficulty becoming self-
sufficient, and who may instead commit crimes, become incarcerated, and
utilize public systems for assistance. However, with adequate support,
disconnected youth may be able to obtain the skills needed to make the
transition to adulthood and ultimately participate fully in society,
including in the workforce. Our research found that many successful
locally operated programs serving disconnected youth still struggle to
access services and opportunities for youth in their communities that
can help these young people meet their needs and achieve educational
and employment goals. While all levels of government can help to assist
this population, the federal government plays an important role by
providing funding, oversight, and technical assistance to support
locally operated programs serving disconnected youth. In addition,
ongoing and relatively new coordination efforts at the federal level
hold potential for promoting more holistic service delivery to youth
while also ensuring more efficient use of federal resources, although
it is too early to know the impact these efforts may have on local
programs serving youth. Sustained attention and leadership from
agencies at appropriate levels will be needed to support such
coordination efforts and help them endure, while at the same time
minimizing unwarranted duplication among the coordination efforts
themselves.
Federal agencies also play an important role in holding programs
accountable for meeting performance goals, although the pursuit of such
goals can sometimes lead to unintended consequences. As a result, it is
important to understand all the ways in which rewarding and sanctioning
performance can change behavior at the local program level. For
example, local program directors receiving WIA Youth funds told us that
meeting the seven current performance measures within 1-year contracts
provides incentives for the programs to serve youth participants who
may quickly achieve desired performance goals within the specified time
frames, potentially leaving behind youth with the most challenges to
successful outcomes. This potentially means that one of the larger
federal funding sources that can be used to assist disconnected youth
may discourage local efforts from serving them. While the new common
measures, if enacted, may help address this issue, it is important that
all workforce investment boards understand how to develop long-term
contracts for local programs that avoid discouraging them from serving
youth facing increased challenges. Labor has also identified this as a
concern and has taken some initial steps to address this issue.
However, unless Labor works more with boards to ensure they have the
information they need for effective contract development, local
programs may continue to lack adequate incentives to work with lower-
skilled youth who could greatly benefit from their services.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To improve implementation of the WIA Youth Activities program, we
recommend that the Secretary of Labor work with states and workforce
investment boards to better ensure they have the information and
guidance needed to develop and implement contracts that allow local
programs to serve youth who are in need of more assistance than others
while still achieving performance goals. This could include (1) working
with workforce investment boards to identify and understand the
incentives or constraints that discourage boards from structuring
contracts with local programs that would assist their efforts to serve
lower-skilled youth, (2) issuing guidance--based on this input--that
provides specific examples of ways to develop contracts with local
service providers that allow them to serve youth at varying skill
levels, and (3) providing technical assistance to support the
implementation of this guidance.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Labor, HHS, Justice, and
Education for review and comment. Labor agreed with our recommendation,
and indicated it will work with workforce investment boards to identify
constraints, issue guidance to the workforce investment system in the
spring of 2008 on ways to develop contracts that allow programs to
successfully serve youth at varying skill levels, and provide technical
assistance to support the implementation of the guidance. Labor's
written comments are reproduced in appendix IV; we incorporated
technical comments it provided where appropriate. HHS provided
additional information about a Web site available to communities to
provide them support for their efforts to help youth, including
disconnected youth, and we have added this information to the report.
HHS's written comments are reproduced in appendix V; it also provided
technical comments that we incorporated where appropriate. Education
provided technical comments only, which we also incorporated where
appropriate. Justice had no comments on the draft report.
Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretaries of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and the Attorney General;
relevant congressional committees; and other interested parties. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be made available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if
you or your staff have any questions about this report. Other contacts
and major contributors are listed in appendix VI.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: List of Local Programs Interviewed:
An asterisk indicates programs we visited in-person. In-person
interviews included a tour of the facilities and meeting with youth
participants.
Table 3:
Organization name: Access Inc.--Youth Empowerment Services;
City: San Diego;
State: Calif;
Brief description: Assists out-of-school youth to complete their high
school education while exploring and preparing to enter employment in a
growth industry career ladder in collaboration with a network of
programs and service providers;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor).
Organization name: American YouthWorks;
City: Austin;
State: Tex;
Brief description: Helps young people transition into self-sufficient
adults through education, job training, and community service;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * AmeriCorps (Corporation for
National and Community Service);
* YouthBuild (Labor);
* WIA (Labor);
* Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Titles I, II, III, IV, and V
(Education).
Organization name: Avon Park Youth Academy;
City: Avon Park;
State: Fl;
Brief description: Provides a residential program that focuses on
vocational education and life skills training, as well as offers a full
range of academic courses;
diploma options, including GED;
and college selection services;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, Title I (Education)[B].
Organization name: * Career Academy at Harbor City High School;
City: Baltimore;
State: Md;
Brief description: Provides educational and occupational training to
Baltimore City youth;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor).
Organization name: *Civicorps Schools (formerly East Bay Conservation
Corps);
City: Oakland;
State: Calif;
Brief description: Promotes citizenship and builds a civil society by
creating educational models that incorporate service as a way of
learning;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * No federal funding.
Organization name: *Civic Works;
City: Baltimore;
State: Md;
Brief description: Engages out-of-school youth and high school students
through education, community revitalization, and workforce development
programs;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * AmeriCorps (Corporation for
National and Community Service);
* YouthBuild (Labor);
* WIA (Labor).
Organization name: *First Place For Youth;
City: Oakland;
State: Calif;
Brief description: Supports youth in their transition from foster care
to successful adulthood through a supportive housing program, an
academic enrichment program, counseling, youth community center, and
collaboration with other organizations;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Supportive Housing Program
(Department of Housing and Urban Development);
* Community Development Block Grant (Department of Housing and Urban
Development).
Organization name: *Fostering Success;
City: Nashville;
State: Tenn;
Brief description: Aims to help youth aging out of foster care to have
access to education, employment, health care, housing, and a place to
call home;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * No federal funding.
Organization name: Guadalupe Youth and Young Adult Programs;
City: Guadalupe;
State: Ariz;
Brief description: Provides a nurturing environment for Guadalupe youth
and young adults that combines education, life and leadership skills,
and job readiness and community services;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * AmeriCorps (Corporation for
National and Community Service);
* YouthBuild (Labor).
Organization name: Harlem Children's Zone;
City: New York;
State: N.Y;
Brief description: Works to enhance the quality of life for children
and families in some of New York City's most devastated neighborhoods;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * No federal funding.
Organization name: Haven House Services--Preparation for Independent
Living Program;
City: Raleigh;
State: N.C;
Brief description: Establishes transitional living program participants
as the leaseholders of their own market-rate apartments in order to
address the issue of housing after graduation from its transitional
living programs;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor);
* Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS);
* Supportive Housing Program (Department of Housing and Urban
Development).
Organization name: Hawaii Job Corps Center;
City: Waimanalo;
State: Hawaii;
Brief description: Provides academic, career, technical, and life
skills training resulting in long-term quality employment;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Job Corps (Labor).
Organization name: Hollywood Cinema Production Resources;
City: Los Angeles;
State: Calif;
Brief description: Trains underserved youth and young adults in the
crafts and technicians skills of the entertainment industry;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Youth Offender Initiative (Labor).
Organization name: Improved Solutions for Urban Systems Corporation;
City: Dayton;
State: Oh;
Brief description: Teaches high school dropouts skills in one of four
fields: construction technology, health care, manufacturing technology,
and computer technology;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * AmeriCorps (Corporation for
National and Community Service);
* YouthBuild (Labor);
* Youth Offender Initiative (Labor);
* Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (HHS).
Organization name: *Janus Youth Programs --Willamette Bridge House
Transitional Living Program;
City: Portland;
State: Ore;
Brief description: Empowers youth who were previously homeless,
pregnant, or parenting to support themselves and work on fulfilling
educational and employment needs, integrating a "self-governance" model
that incorporates resident participation in all program decision-making
processes;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Horizon (Department of Housing and
Urban Development);
* Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS).
Organization name: Jobs for Youth/Chicago;
City: Chicago;
State: Ill;
Brief description: Helps young men and women from low-income families
become a part of the economic mainstream and, in the process, provide
the business community with motivated job-ready workers;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Adult Basic Education Grants
(Education);
* WIA (Labor).
Organization name: *Joseph L. Meek Professional Technical Campus of the
Alliance High School;
City: Portland;
State: Ore;
Brief description: Provides Portland youth with vocational and academic
programs and offers opportunities for students seeking an alternative
to the traditional high school model;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, Title I (Education);
* Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act (Education).
Organization name: *Larkin Street Youth Services;
City: San Francisco;
State: Calif;
Brief description: Provides a range of housing options-
-from immediate emergency shelter to permanent supportive housing--in
addition to essential wraparound services that offer young people the
resources and skills they need to exit street life;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * McKinney-Vento Act (HHS);
* Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS);
* Ryan White Care Act, Title IV (HHS).
Organization name: Las Artes Arts and Educational Center;
City: Tucson;
State: Ariz;
Brief description: Addresses the needs of out-of-school youth by
providing an opportunity to create public art while earning a GED;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor).
Organization name: *Latin American Youth Center-Workforce Investment
and Social Enterprise;
City: Washington;
State: D.C;
Brief description: To offer clear guidance and direction toward a
career path to youth who do not have marketable skills or who have
dropped out of school;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor).
Organization name: Lighthouse Youth Services;
City: Cincinnati;
State: Oh;
Brief description: Provides safe, secure living environments for
homeless youth and adults, and assists them with developing the skills
necessary to live self-sufficiently and responsibly;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS);
* Shelter Plus Care Program (Department of Housing and Urban
Development);
* Scattered Sites Grant (Department of Housing and Urban Development).
Organization name: *Maya Angelou Public Charter School;
City: Washington;
State: D.C;
Brief description: Creates learning environments in low-income
communities in which teens, particularly those who have not succeeded
in traditional schools, can develop the academic, social, and
employment skills they need to build rewarding lives and promote
positive change in their communities;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * No federal funding[C].
Organization name: *MY TURN, Inc;
City: Brockton;
State: Mass;
Brief description: Assists youth in the development and identification
of their skills, goals, and self-confidence through career exploration,
employment training, and postsecondary planning in collaboration with
partnering organizations;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor).
Organization name: Northwest Piedmont Service Corps;
City: Winston Salem;
State: N.C;
Brief description: Helps young men and women develop workplace and life
skills to make them successful contributing members of the community;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor).
Organization name: *Oasis Center;
City: Nashville;
State: Tenn;
Brief description: Addresses the needs of youth in crisis through
housing and other support services;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS).
Organization name: *Open Meadow Alternative Schools;
City: Portland;
State: Ore;
Brief description: Aims to retain youth who have not fared well in
traditional academic settings and those who have already dropped out,
as well as supporting their transition to college and employment;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor);
* Community Development Block Grant (Department of Housing and Urban
Development).
Organization name: Operation Fresh Start;
City: Madison;
State: Wis;
Brief description: Serves at-risk youth, primarily high school dropouts
and offenders, through a paid opportunity to learn basic work skills,
improve basic academic skills, prepare for the high school equivalency
examination or complete diplomas, secure and retain employment and/or
postsecondary placement at the end of training, and contribute to the
community;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * AmeriCorps (Corporation for
National and Community Service);
* Community Development Block Grant (Department of Housing and Urban
Development);
* HOME Investment Partnerships Program (Department of Housing and Urban
Development);
* WIA (Labor).
Organization name: *Portland Community College-Gateway to College;
City: Portland;
State: Ore;
Brief description: Promotes student success and readiness for an adult
learning environment by grouping students into learning communities for
their first term, offering intensive literacy development, maintaining
rigorous academic standards, and providing individualized support;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Not applicable[D].
Organization name: *Project CRAFT/Nashville;
City: Nashville;
State: Tenn;
Brief description: Strives to improve educational levels, teach
vocational skills, and reduce recidivism among adjudicated youth while
addressing the home-building industry's need for entry-level workers by
incorporating hands-on training in the construction trade with academic
instruction;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Youth Offender Grant (Labor).
Organization name: Promise House-Transitional Living Services Program;
City: Dallas;
State: Tex;
Brief description: Offers older youth who have nowhere to go, no
family, no money, and nowhere to live the opportunity not only to learn
how to live independently, but to finish their education, find
meaningful work, and become productive citizens;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Continuum of Care Grant (Department
of Housing and Urban Development);
* Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS).
Organization name: * Sasha Bruce Youthwork-Independent Living Program;
City: Washington;
State: D.C;
Brief description: Strives to improve the lives of runaway, homeless,
neglected, and at-risk youth and their families in the Washington area
by providing shelter, counseling, life skills training, and positive
youth development activities;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Stewart McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act (HHS).
Organization name: School to Career;
City: San Antonio;
State: Tex;
Brief description: Promotes and sustains communication among community
partners to leverage resources and supportive services for young adults
aging out of the foster care system;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]:
* No federal funding.
Organization name: Teen Living Programs-Transitional Living Program;
City: Chicago;
State: Ill;
Brief description: Assists youth who are homeless to permanently leave
the streets, secure stable housing, and build self-sufficient,
satisfying lives;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS).
Organization name: Welcome New Jersey-Camden Community Connections;
City: Camden;
State: N.J;
Brief description: Provides life skills management, job readiness
skills training, education tutorial and academic progress assistance,
and community service and job opportunities to youth living in Camden
County who are at risk of adjudication through the juvenile justice
system;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * High Growth Youth Offender
Initiative (Labor);
* WIA (Labor).
Organization name: *Youth Opportunity (YO!) Baltimore;
City: Baltimore;
State: M.D;
Brief description: Helps City youth receive the education and career
skills training needed to become successful adults;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor);
* Youth Opportunity (Labor).
Organization name: *Youth Opportunity (YO) Boston;
City: Boston;
State: Mass;
Brief description: YO Boston is a citywide program that helps young
people on the wrong path make a turn toward a positive, self-
sufficient future by connecting them with opportunities and employment;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * No federal funding[E].
Organization name: YouthBuild McLean County;
City: Bloomington;
State: Ill;
Brief description: Offers young people an opportunity to build their
futures and their communities through education, leadership
development, job training, and the rehabilitation and production of
affordable housing;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * AmeriCorps (Corporation for
National and Community Service);
* YouthBuild (Labor);
* Urban and Rural Community Economic Development Program (HHS);
* Self- Help Housing Loan program (U.S. Department of Agriculture).
Organization name: *Youth Employment Partnership, Inc;
City: Oakland;
State: Calif;
Brief description: Provides training, job placement, access to
education, and comprehensive support services to enhance the employment
opportunities of underserved youth;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * AmeriCorps (Corporation for
National and Community Service);
* WIA (Labor);
* YouthBuild (Labor).
Organization name: Youth In Need--Transitional Living Program;
City: St. Charles;
State: Mo;
Brief description: Offers homeless youth opportunities to learn
independent living skills, work toward completing their education, and
become self-sufficient members of the community;
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS).
Source: GAO analysis of data from 39 local programs.
[A] Key federal funding sources as reported by the 39 program
directors. GAO did not verify this information.
[B] This funding source provides only 1 percent of the program's
budget.
[C] Previously, the program reported receiving federal funding through
the TRIO grant (Education); Safe Schools/Healthy Schools (HHS, Justice,
and Education); and Titles I, II, and V of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, as amended (Education).
[D] This program received less than $10,000 from the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, Title I (Education) in fiscal year 2006.
[E] Initially, this program was funded by the federal Youth Opportunity
Grant. However, program authorization expired in fiscal year 2003 and
funding has not been appropriated for the program.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology:
Our review focused on (1) the characteristics of programs that provide
services to disconnected youth, (2) the key elements of locally
operated programs that program directors attribute to their success in
reconnecting youth to education and employment, and (3) the challenges
that are involved in implementing and operating these programs and how
federal agencies are helping to address these challenges. For the
purposes of this engagement, we defined disconnected youth as
individuals between the ages of 14 and 24 who have dropped out of
school and are not employed, or do not have supportive social networks,
which may help youth access employment or educational opportunities.
This definition is intended to include youth who are close to aging out
of the foster care system, in the juvenile justice system, homeless and
runaway youth, and youth who have dropped out of school. We did not
focus on prevention efforts, such as school-focused dropout prevention
programs, or on youth with disabilities or migrant youth, although
prevention efforts may be part of programs we reviewed, and youth with
disabilities and migrant youth may be among the disconnected youth
these programs serve.
To obtain background information on the role the federal government
plays in assisting programs that serve disconnected youth, we
identified four primary federal agencies as having programs for this
population: the Departments of Labor, HHS, Justice, and Education. We
selected these agencies based on their legislative mandate to
administer relevant federal programs, our previous work, and reports
from the Congressional Research Service and the White House Task Force
for Disadvantaged Youth, and discussions with federal officials.
However, other federal agencies, such as the Department of Housing and
Urban Development and the Corporation for National and Community
Service, may also have programs that serve this population. We talked
with agency officials to identify the key programs within these four
agencies that serve disconnected youth. We reviewed the relevant laws,
regulations, appropriations, and documents of 15 key federal programs
as well as coordinating bodies involved with assisting disconnected
youth, and synthesized information from interviews with appropriate
federal officials.
To obtain information on the types of programs that provide services to
disconnected youth and to understand the key elements that contribute
to the success of locally operated programs and the challenges they
face, we interviewed directors of local programs identified by agency
officials and 11 experts on youth issues as successfully helping
disconnected youth reach educational or employment goals. We selected
experts based on their understanding of and range of perspectives on
youth issues as well as their knowledge of efforts under way at the
local level. Specifically, we identified them through reviews of key
studies, participation in the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth, and other conferences focused on youth issues. In speaking with
the experts, we asked them to identify other experts in the field who
were working on disconnected youth issues, and we reviewed our list
with three of the experts to ensure we had a comprehensive list. We
asked the experts and agency officials to identify local programs that
could serve as examples or models for expansion or replication that
represent various approaches or subpopulations and geographic
diversity, including programs in both urban and rural locations. We
also asked them to indicate the specific reasons why they were
recommending the program as successful and whether evaluation results
or outcome data were available for the local effort. However, many
noted that rigorous program evaluations are not readily available.
Likewise, when we asked programs we interviewed whether they had
conducted impact evaluations of their programs, few had completed
evaluations. We did not review any available evaluations in determining
whether to include a program in our review.
Out of 100 programs that were identified, we selected 39 local programs
to include in our review. We selected a mix of programs in 16 states
and the District of Columbia that provided different types of services,
such as transitional living programs, employment skills training
programs, and alternative education programs; that targeted different
subpopulations; and that represented geographic diversity, including a
mix of urban and rural locations. (See app. I for a list of the
programs we interviewed.) Most of the programs received federal
funding, but some relied primarily on state, local, or private funding
sources. For organizations with multiple programs focused on
disadvantaged youth, we asked the executive director to identify the
single program that had the most long-standing success in reconnecting
youth to education and employment.
We interviewed directors of these programs using a standard set of
questions. We asked directors to provide information on the key
elements they thought made the program successful, implementing and
operating challenges, gaps in services provided in their community,
funding sources, and federal grants and policies. Prior to the
interviews, we reviewed our list of closed-ended and open-ended
questions with internal and external experts and conducted two pretests
to ensure the questions were appropriate and clear. To use resources
most efficiently, we conducted in-person interviews with 19 programs in
six locations where there were a number of programs to visit, that
enabled us to have broad geographic coverage, and where we could see
examples of the different types of programs assisting disconnected
youth. Site visit locations included Baltimore, Maryland; Boston and
Brockton, Massachusetts; Nashville, Tennessee; Portland, Oregon; San
Francisco and Oakland, California; and Washington, D.C. On our site
visits, we toured facilities and met with youth at the programs we
visited to learn about their experiences in the program. In addition,
we spoke with representatives from various citywide initiatives in
Baltimore, Boston, and San Francisco to gain an understanding of their
efforts at cross-system collaboration to serve disconnected youth. We
completed the remaining interviews by phone. We conducted this
performance audit from May 2007 to February 2008 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Key Federal Grant Programs That Serve Disconnected Youth:
Agency or office: Department of Labor: Office of the Secretary;
Federal grant: Job Corps;
Eligible youth: Low-income youth ages 16 to 24;
Purpose: To assist eligible youth who need and can benefit from an
intensive program, operated in a group setting in residential and
nonresidential centers, to become more responsible, employable, and
productive citizens.
Agency or office: Department of Labor: Employment and Training
Administration;
Federal grant: Workforce Investment Act Youth Activities;
Eligible youth: Low- income Individuals ages 14 to 21 who have a
barrier to completing an educational program or securing or holding
employment;
Purpose: To make available to youth activities in workforce training,
education attainment, community involvement, leadership development,
and supports while in the program and for follow-up services not less
than 12 months after program completion.
Agency or office: Department of Labor: Employment and Training
Administration;
Federal grant: YouthBuild;
Eligible youth: School dropouts ages 16 to 24, who are members of a low-
income family, in foster care, or are youth offenders, disabled,
migrant, or children of incarcerated parents;
Purpose: To provide disadvantaged youth with opportunities for
employment, education, leadership development, and training through the
rehabilitation or construction of housing for homeless individuals and
low-income families, and of public facilities.
Agency or office: Department of Labor: Employment and Training
Administration;
Federal grant: Youth Offender Grants;
Eligible youth: 14 to 24-year-old youth offenders, gang members, and
youth at risk of court or gang involvement;
Purpose: To increase employability and employment of youth offenders,
gang members, and youth at risk of court or gang involvement.
Agency or office: Department of Labor: Employment and Training
Administration;
Federal grant: Youth Opportunity Grants;
(Program authorization expired in fiscal year 2003 and funding has not
been appropriated for the program);
Eligible youth: All 14 to 21-year-olds residing in designated
impoverished areas;
Purpose: To provide education, employment, and leadership development
activities and supports for youth in high- poverty neighborhoods to
increase their long-term employment.
Agency or office: Department of Health and Human Services: Children's
Bureau;
Federal grant: Chafee Foster Care Independence Program;
Eligible youth: Children who are likely to remain in foster care as
well as youth 18 to 21 who have aged out of the foster care system;
Purpose: To identify youth likely to remain in foster care until age 18
and assist these youth up to age 21 to make the transition to self-
sufficiency by providing housing and educational and vocational
services, among other services.
Agency or office: Department of Health and Human Services: Family and
Youth Services Bureau;
Federal grant: Runaway and Homeless Youth Program;
Eligible youth: Emergency services for homeless and runaway youth under
18 years of age. Transitional housing services for homeless youth ages
16 to 21;
Purpose: To provide comprehensive services for youth in at-risk
situations and their families. The program supports emergency shelter
and services and street-based education and outreach to young people,
and provides older homeless youth with longer-term housing and
assistance to develop the skills and resources to live independently.
Agency or office: Department of Education: Office of Vocational and
Adult Education;
Federal grant: Adult Education Basic Grants to States;
Eligible youth: Adults and out-of-school youth ages 16 and older;
Purpose: To provide adult education and literacy services, including
workplace literacy services, family literacy services, and English
literacy and civic education programs.
Agency or office: Department of Education: Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools;
Federal grant: Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition
Training for Incarcerated Youth;
Eligible youth: A person age 25 or younger who is incarcerated in a
state prison and is within 5 years of release or parole;
Purpose: To assist and encourage incarcerated youth to acquire
functional literacy, and life and job skills through the pursuit of
postsecondary education certificates, associate of arts degrees, and
bachelor's degrees.
Agency or office: Department of Education: Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education;
Federal grant: Education for Homeless Children and Youth--Grants for
States and Local Activities;
Eligible youth: Homeless children, including preschoolers and youth;
Purpose: To ensure that homeless children, including preschoolers and
youth, have equal access to free and appropriate public education.
Among other things, this grant also supports an office for the
coordination of the education of homeless children and youth in each
state.
Agency or office: Department of Education: Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education;
Federal grant: Title I-D Prevention and Intervention Programs for
Children and Youth Who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk--Grants
for States and Localities;
Eligible youth: Children and youths in state-run institutions for
juveniles and in adult correctional institutions;
Purpose: To improve educational services for neglected and delinquent
children and youth in state-run institutions for juveniles and in adult
correctional institutions.
Agency or office: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention;
Federal grant: Part E Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising
New Initiatives and Programs;
Eligible youth: Individuals 17 and under involved in the juvenile
justice system;
some states may provide services until their 24th birthday;
Purpose: To support programs that will develop, test, or demonstrate
promising new initiatives that may prevent, control, or reduce juvenile
delinquency.
Agency or office: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention;
Federal grant: Title II B--State Formula Grants;
Eligible youth: Individuals 17 and under involved in the juvenile
justice system;
some states may provide services until their 24th birthday;
Purpose: To support the planning, establishment, operation,
coordination, and evaluation of projects for the development of more
effective juvenile delinquency programs and improved juvenile justice
systems.
Agency or office: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention;
Federal grant: Juvenile Accountability Block Grant;
Eligible youth: Individuals 17 and under involved in the juvenile
justice system;
some states may provide services until their 24th birthday;
Purpose: To strengthen their juvenile justice systems and encourage
juveniles to be accountable for their actions.
Agency or office: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention;
Federal grant: Title V Community Prevention Block Grants;
Eligible youth: Individuals under age 17 involved in the juvenile
justice system;
some states may provide services until their 24th birthday;
Purpose: To support local projects and activities for youth who have
had contact with the juvenile justice system or who are likely to have
contact with the juvenile justice system.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Employment and Training Administration:
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20210:
February 5, 2008:
Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
Thank you for sharing the Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft
report entitled, Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some
of the Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth to
Education and Employment with the Department. The Department found the
report to be very informative. In the report, GAO provides guidance on
improving the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act, Youth
Activities program. GAO recommends the Department ".work with states
and Workforce Investment Boards to better ensure they have the
information and guidance needed to develop and implement contracts that
allow local programs to serve youth who are in need of more assistance
than others while still achieving performance goals."
The Department agrees with this recommendation and intends to work with
Workforce Investment Boards to identify constraints and plans to issue
guidance to the Workforce Investment system in the spring of 2008 that
will provide specific examples of ways to develop contracts with local
service providers that allow them to successfully serve youth at
varying skill levels. In addition, the Department will provide
technical assistance to support the implementation of this guidance.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Thomas M. Dowd:
Administrator:
Office of Policy Development and Research:
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Department Of Health & Human Services:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation:
February 8, 2008:
Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
Enclosed are the Department's comments on the U.S. Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled: Disconnected
Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some of the Challenges Faced by
Local Programs that Reconnect Youth to Education and Employment (GAO 08-
313).
The Department appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on
this report before its publication.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Hermard for:
Vince Ventimiglia:
Assistant Secretary for Legislation:
Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services On The
Government Accountability Office's (Gao) Draft Report Entitled,
"Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some Of The
Challenges Faced By Local Programs That Reconnect Youth To Education
And Employment (GAO-08-313):
GAO Recommendation:
To improve implementation of the WIA Youth Activities program, we
recommend that the Secretary of Labor work with states and Workforce
Investment Boards to better ensure they have the information and
guidance needed to develop and implement contracts that allow local
programs to serve youth who are in need of more assistance than others
while still achieving performance goals. This could include (1) working
with Workforce Investment Boards to identify and understand the
incentives or constraints that discourage boards from structuring
contracts with local programs that would assist their efforts to serve
lower-skilled youth, (2) issuing guidance”based on this input”that
provides specific examples of ways to develop contracts with local
service providers that allow them to serve youth at varying skill
levels, and (3) providing technical assistance to support the
implementation of this guidance.
Response to Recommendation:
Since 2005, in an effort to provide stronger support to local
partnerships as they work to support youth, several Federal agencies,
including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department
of Labor, the Department of Education, and the Department of Justice,
have created a website called the Community Guide to Helping America's
Youth [hyperlink, http://www.helpingamericasyouth.gov]. This website
provides interactive tools to assist communities as they seek to form
effective partnerships, assess community assets, map local and Federal
resources, and search for evidence-based programs to meet the needs of
youth, including disconnected youth.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Cornelia M. Ashby, (202) 512-7215, ashbyc@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Gale Harris (Assistant Director) and Kate Blumenreich (Analyst-in-
Charge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Kim Siegal and Ashanta
Williams made significant contributions to this report in all aspects
of the work. Tiffany Boiman, George Erhart, Adrienne Fernandes,
Jessikah Foulk, Tamara Fucile, Claire Li, and Flavio Menasce also made
contributions to the report. Susannah Compton contributed to writing
this report. Luann Moy provided key technical support, and Jessica
Botsford provided legal support. Avrum Ashery developed the graphics
for the report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
African American Children in Foster Care: Additional HHS Assistance
Needed to Help States Reduce the Proportion in Care. GAO-07-816.
Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2007.
YouthBuild Program: Analysis of Outcome Data Needed to Determine Long-
Term Benefits. GAO-07-82. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2007.
Child Welfare: Improving Social Service Program, Training, and
Technical Assistance Information Would Help Address Longstanding
Service-Level and Workforce Challenges. GAO-07-75. Washington, D.C.:
October 6, 2006.
Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but
Labor Needs to Make Data Available. GAO-06-53. Washington, D.C.:
December 9, 2005.
Foster Youth: HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services and
Monitoring of States' Independent Living Programs. GAO-05-25.
Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2004.
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.
Juvenile Justice: OJJDP Reporting Requirements for Discretionary and
Formula Grantees and Concerns About Evaluation Studies. GAO-02-23.
Washington, D.C.: October 30, 2001.
At-Risk Youth: School-Community Collaborations Focus on Improving
Student Outcomes. GAO-01-66. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2000.
Foster Care: Effectiveness of Independent Living Services Unknown. GAO/
HEHS-00-13. Washington, D.C.: November 5, 1999.
Foster Care: Challenges in Helping Youths Live Independently. GAO/T-
HEHS-99-121. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 1999.
At-Risk and Delinquent Youths: Fiscal Year 1998 Programs. GAO/HEHS-99-
88R. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 1999.
Job Corps: Links with Labor Market Improved but Vocational Training
Performance Overstated. GAO/HEHS-99-15. Washington, D.C.: November 4,
1998.
At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Programs Lack Coordinated
Federal Effort. GAO/T-HEHS-98-38. Washington, D.C.: November 5, 1997.
At-Risk and Delinquent Youths: Fiscal Year 1996 Programs. GAO/HEHS-97-
211R. Washington, D.C.: September 2, 1997.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] There is not a commonly accepted definition of disconnected youth.
For the purposes of this study, we define disconnected youth as youth
aged 14 to 24 who are not in school and not working, or who lack family
or other support networks.
[2] In December 2002, the President of the United States established
the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth to develop for his
consideration a comprehensive federal response to the problems of youth
failure, under existing authorities and programs, with a focus on
enhanced agency accountability and effectiveness.
[3] Social networks of family, friends, and communities can provide
assistance in the form of employment connections, health insurance
coverage, tuition, and other supports such as housing and financial
assistance. See Adrienne Fernandes, Vulnerable Youth: Background and
Policies, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C.: April 24,
2007.
[4] The 2.3 million figure is based on data from March 2006 cited in
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies. The 5.2 million figure is
based on 2001 data, cited in 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).
These estimates refer to youth aged 16 to 24, which differs from the
definition for youth (aged 14 to 24) used in this report, and are
derived from a dataset that includes the civilian, non-
institutionalized population.
[5] See GAO, African American Children in Foster Care: Additional HHS
Assistance Needed to Help States Reduce the Proportion in Care, GAO-07-
816 (Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2007), for more information on
overrepresentation of African-American children in foster care.
[6] Other federal agencies also play an important role in funding
programs that serve disconnected youth, including the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and the Corporation for National and
Community Service, among others.
[7] Local workforce investment boards are composed of representatives
of businesses, local educational entities, labor organizations,
community-based organizations, economic development agencies, and one-
stop partners. WIA required states and localities to bring together
federally funded employment and training programs into a single
comprehensive workforce system, called the one-stop system.
[8] The Transitional Living Program is one of three programs that
constitute HHS's Runaway and Homeless Youth program.
[9] The programs we reviewed are not a representative sample of the
range of programs that serve disconnected youth. See appendix II for
more information on the selection criteria we used.
[10] Average length of stay is longer for transitional living programs
than for emergency shelters for youth.
[11] The AmeriCorps program, administered within the Corporation for
National and Community Service, provides financial awards for education
to individuals upon completion of intensive public service that meets
educational, public safety, health, and environmental needs.
[12] In 2005, GAO surveyed 36 grantees that received Labor's Youth
Opportunity funding. The grantees also identified obstacles faced by
their clients--homelessness, lack of family support, mental health
problems, and low levels of academic achievement--as a major
implementation challenge. See GAO, Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons
Can be Learned from Program, but Labor Needs to Make Data Available,
GAO-06-53 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2005).
[13] In a 2006 report on challenges faced by child welfare agencies,
GAO reported that in 2006 more than half of state child welfare
agencies said that they were dissatisfied with mental health services,
substance abuse services, transportation services, and housing for
parents of at-risk families. States interviewed for the report cited
that funding constraints were among the reasons maintaining an adequate
level of services was difficult. See GAO, Child Welfare: Improving
Social Service Program, Training, and Technical Assistance Information
Would Help Address Longstanding Service-Level and Workforce Challenges,
GAO-07-75 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 6, 2006).
[14] Similarly, 28 out of 36 of the Youth Opportunity grantees
interviewed for GAO's 2005 report also cited a lack of jobs in the
community as an implementation challenge.
[15] We have documented a similar effect of performance benchmarks on
local programs' selection criteria in the WIA Adult and Dislocated
Workers programs. See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Improvements
Needed in Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of
WIA's Effectiveness, GAO-02-275 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2002).
[16] We have similarly found in a prior report that programs receiving
WIA funds preferred to focus on in-school youth because serving out-of-
school youth was much more difficult and expensive, and less effective.
See GAO, 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.: Feb. 23, 2004).
[17] The Workforce Investment Act, initially authorized through fiscal
year 2003 may be one legislative vehicle for establishing new measures.
Congress has not yet reauthorized WIA, although it has continued to
appropriate funds for WIA programs each year.
[18] Program directors responded on the severity of these challenges
using a five-point scale as follows: very great challenge, great
challenge, moderate challenge, some challenge, and little or no
challenge.
[19] Labor officials explained that 95 percent of the funds for the 3-
year YouthBuild grant are spent on program operations in the first 2
years, with the remaining 5 percent allowed for follow-up with
participants during the third grant year.
[20] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
[21] GAO, At Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Programs Lack
Coordinated Federal Effort, GAO/T-HEHS-98-38 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 5,
1997).
[22] For more information, see the Community Guide to Helping America's
Youth at [hyperlink, http://www.helpingamericasyouth.gov].
[23] Pub. L. No.109-365, title VIII, which established the council,
authorized appropriations of $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
2007 and 2008 to carry out the title, although funds were not
appropriated.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
