United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

YOUTHBUILD 

PROGRAM 

Analysis of Outcome 

Data Needed to 

Determine Long-Term 

Benefits 

February 2007 

 

GAO-07-82 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

February 2007

YOUTHBUILD PROGRAM 

Analysis of Outcome Data Needed to 

Highlights of GAO-07-82, a report to Determine Long-Term Benefits 

congressional committees 

Since 1993, the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) has provided funding for

Youthbuild, a competitive grant 

program that trains and educates 

disadvantaged youth and helps 

build low-income housing. In 2006, 

Youthbuild was transferred to the 

Department of Labor (Labor) to

better align the Youthbuild 

program with existing youth 

workforce and training programs. 

In response to concerns about the 

overall quality of Youthbuild, a 

Senate report directed GAO to 

assess the program. GAO’s

objectives included (1) evaluating 

how HUD assessed and oversaw

the program, (2) determining what 

results the program achieved, and 

(3) assessing how successful 

grantees were in obtaining outside

funding. GAO analyzed Youthbuild

performance data, visited

Youthbuild sites, and interviewed 

agency officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that (1) HUD 

analyze closeout reports by grant

and share information on identified 

problems and best practices with

its technical assistance contractor 

and Labor, (2) Labor develop postprogram performance outcomes, 

and (3) Labor consider multiyear 

funding of grants for the program. 

HUD and Labor provided

comments on a draft of this report. 

Labor generally agreed with the 

recommendations. HUD agreed 

but cited resource constraints in

implementing its recommendation. 

While HUD requires grantees to report basic performance data, such as the 

number of program participants and graduates and job placements, HUD has 

not aggregated or analyzed the data and conducted limited oversight of 

grantees. According to HUD officials, they did not have staff available to 

analyze the closeout reports that grantees must submit, and a lack of 

resources also limited oversight of grantees. The monitoring HUD did 

primarily focused on compliance with program requirements such as

documentation rather than on performance. As a result, HUD largely was 

unable to tell how the individual Youthbuild grantee programs performed. 

 

Limited outcome data preclude any overall assessment of the performance 

of the Youthbuild program; further, the few other analyses available such as

the one GAO did in this study to augment limited existing data cannot be 

generalized programwide. GAO analyzed 245 closeout reports, representing 

46 percent of the grantees or 12,863 participants. While GAO could 

determine percentages of participants who received high school diplomas or 

were placed in jobs, GAO could not determine outcomes over time, partly

because the reports lacked baseline information and grantees were not 

required to and generally did not follow participants after graduation. 

Further, while closeout reports include information about impediments to 

program success and “best practices,” HUD did not systematically review 

this information or share it with its primary technical assistance contractor. 

Consequently, the lack of programwide evaluations, follow-up data, and 

dissemination of best practices make it very difficult to assess the 

performance of Youthbuild over time and determine which programs and 

strategies have worked best. Reporting on post-program performance 

outcomes, such as the number of participants placed and retained in 

construction-related employment, could increase the value of the closeout 

reports and better measure program results. Labor officials indicated that 

they would consider including such measures for program reporting. 

Grantees had varying success in obtaining funds from outside sources, but 

YouthBuild USA data suggest that continued (multiyear) HUD funding was 

critical to sustaining grantee operations and attracting leveraged funds. 

Grantees’ success in obtaining additional funds varied widely, from 21 grants 

reporting no additional funding sources to 40 reporting more than $1 million. 

While most grantees have generated outside funding, YouthBuild USA 

reported that most grantees have had difficulty continuing operations 

without continued HUD funding. Their data show that 90 percent of 

grantees ceased operations if not funded for 3 consecutive years by HUD. 

Further, YouthBuild USA also noted that grantees with follow-on HUD 

funding achieved better performance outcomes, such as higher rates of job 

placements, than grantees that did not receive subsequent HUD funding. www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-82.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact William B. 

Shear at (202) 512-4325 or shearw@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 7

HUD’s Grant-Making Procedures Incorporated Legislative Criteria 11 

HUD Oversight of Grantees’ Performance Has Been Limited 14 

Incomplete Data on Participants’ Outcomes Precludes an Overall 

Assessment of Program’s Success 19 

Youthbuild Grantees Have Experienced Varied Success in 

Obtaining Outside Funding Sources, and Many Cited Continued 

HUD Funding as Crucial 28 

Conclusions 31

Recommendations for Executive Action 32 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 33 

Appendix I Comments from the U.S. Department of Labor 35 

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 37

Figures 

Figure 1: Youthbuild Appropriations, Fiscal Years 1993-2006 8 

Figure 2: Characteristics of Participants Entering YouthBuild USAAffiliated Programs, 1997-2005 10 

Figure 3: NOFA Point-Scoring System for Fiscal Year 2005 

Applications 12

Figure 4: HUD Awards by Funding Category for Fiscal Years 2001-

2006 13

Figure 5: Youthbuild Grant Applications and the Number Funded 

by Fiscal Year (1996-2006) 14 

Figure 6: Based on Closeout Reports, Youthbuild Performance 

Measures Indicate Varied Outputs 23 

Figure 7: Outside Funding Amounts Varied Widely for Grants We 

Reviewed 29

Page i GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
Abbreviations 

CPD Community Planning and Development 

GED General Equivalency Diploma 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

NOFA Notice of Funding Availability 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

WIA Workforce Investment Act 

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. However, 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. 

Page ii GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

February 28, 2007 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

Chairman 

The Honorable Christopher Bond 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing 

 and Urban Development, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable John W. Olver 

Chairman 

The Honorable Joe Knollenberg 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing 

 and Urban Development, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriation 

House of Representatives 

Since 1993, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

has provided funding for Youthbuild, a “second chance” program that 

trains and educates disadvantaged youth and helps build housing for lowand very low-income families across the United States. As stated in the 

authorizing legislation, the purposes of the Youthbuild program are (1) 

expanding the supply of affordable housing by utilizing economically 

disadvantaged young adults, (2) providing economically disadvantaged 

young adults with opportunities for meaningful work and service to their 

communities, (3) enabling economically disadvantaged young adults to 

obtain the education and employment skills necessary to achieve 

economic self-sufficiency, and (4) fostering the development of leadership

skills and commitment to community development among young adults in

low-income communities.1

 Although a few studies have shown instances 

where Youthbuild graduates credit the program for helping them 

 1

Youthbuild was originally authorized by provisions contained in the Housing and

Community Development Act of 1992. The YouthBuild Transfer Act repealed the original 

authorizing legislation, effective September 2006, when the Youthbuild program was 

transferred to the Department of Labor (Labor). The original authorizing legislation was in 

effect during the time period covered by our report. 

Page 1 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
overcome difficult circumstances, gain critical job skills, and continue 

their education, concerns have been expressed about whether HUD’s 

program oversight has been sufficient to adequately measure program 

outcomes. 

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 authorized the 

Youthbuild program. The program was based on the Youth Action 

Program developed in East Harlem, New York, in the late 1970s in which

high school dropouts received academic training and learned job skills by 

renovating abandoned buildings. The YouthBuild Transfer Act shifted 

program oversight of grants issued beginning in fiscal year 2007 to the

Department of Labor (Labor)—in part, to better align the program with 

existing federal workforce development and youth training programs.2

 The 

Transfer Act also expanded the program’s scope to allow construction and

rehabilitation of community facilities in addition to housing. HUD will 

continue to oversee Youthbuild grants funded through fiscal year 2006.

That is, HUD’s oversight responsibility could continue for several more 

years since grants can remain active for 3 years or more. 

Noting concerns regarding the overall quality of the Youthbuild program, 

the Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 Transportation, 

Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of 

Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act directed us to 

comprehensively assess the Youthbuild program’s overall success, 

including its ability to attract local support and funding. Specifically, the 

objectives of this report are to (1) describe how HUD makes Youthbuild 

program grants; (2) evaluate how HUD assesses and oversees the 

Youthbuild program; (3) determine how successful the Youthbuild 

program has been in achieving desired results, such as providing the 

education and job training needed to achieve economic self-sufficiency 

and supplying affordable housing; and (4) assess how successful local 

Youthbuild organizations have been in obtaining private funding and 

support. 

We focused our analysis on reviewing HUD’s grant making and oversight

processes and evaluating available data for measuring program success. 

 2

HUD spells Youthbuild with a lower case “b,” as written in the Housing and Community 

Development Act of 1992. As such, when referring to the HUD program, we spell 

Youthbuild with a “b.” The YouthBuild Transfer Act used the upper case “B” spelling. To be 

consistent with the legislation, Labor plans to use the capitalized spelling when it takes 

over program administration. 

Page 2 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
To determine how HUD makes annual program grants, we reviewed the 

application and review process HUD uses to identify and select 

organizations for grant awards.3

 To evaluate how HUD assesses and 

oversees the program, we interviewed HUD officials at the national and 

field offices. We also obtained information on the extent to which grantees 

are monitored and the results of the monitoring. Further, we obtained 

information on the type of performance data grantees submit to HUD and 

HUD’s role in reviewing the information. We also obtained funding and 

grant award information from HUD. We assessed the reliability of these 

data by comparing the information with other data sources to identify 

obvious problems with completeness or accuracy, and interviewing 

knowledgeable agency officials about the data. We determined that the 

data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. To develop

information on how successful the Youthbuild program has been, we 

consulted relevant literature, including three studies of the Youthbuild 

program’s effect on participants’ lives.4

 However, the studies were limited 

in scope and methodology and constrained by the absence of a database 

containing performance information from all the grantees in the 

Youthbuild program. We also interviewed officials and received 

information from HUD’s primary technical assistance contractor, 

YouthBuild USA. Further, because HUD lacked a centralized database on

grantees’ program performance results, we analyzed 245 grant closeout 

reports submitted by grantees to HUD from April 2000 to August 2006.5

 We 

also visited nine Youthbuild programs in California, Illinois, 

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C.6

 The 

sites were chosen in part because the programs varied in size, leadership 

 3

Grantees include public or private nonprofit organizations, states or units of local 

government, or any entity eligible to provide education and employment training under 

other federal employment training programs.

4

Andrew Hahn, Thomas Leavitt, Erin McNamara Horvat, and James Earl Davis, “Life after

YouthBuild, 900 YouthBuild Graduates Reflect on Their Lives, Dreams, and Experiences” 

(YouthBuild USA: June 2004); Maxine V. Mitchell, CRE et al., “Evaluation of the Youthbuild

Program (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research: August 2003); and Minnesota Department of Economic 

Security, “Minnesota Youthbuild Program: A Measurement of Costs and Benefits to the

State of Minnesota” (Commissioned by the Minnesota Youthbuild Coalition, Prepared by 

MDES staff: February 2003). 

5

HUD identifies the reports as Final Performance Evaluation Reports. However, in the

report we use the term “closeout reports.” 

6

Youthbuild locations we visited included San Francisco, California; Bloomington and

Rockford, Illinois; Brockton, Lowell, and Springfield, Massachusetts; Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania; Providence, Rhode Island; and Washington, D.C. 

Page 3 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
style, and teaching approach, including the charter school format. The 

closeout reports we reviewed represented about 46 percent of the closed 

grants awarded from 1997 through 2003. We were unable to review the 

remainder of the reports either because HUD was not able to provide a 

copy of the closeout reports, the grantee had not submitted a closeout 

report, or the report did not have sufficient information for us to use. In 

addition, we reviewed monitoring reports covering 16 grantees prepared 

by HUD field office staff as part of their program oversight duties. To 

assess how successful local Youthbuild organizations have been in 

obtaining private funding and support, we analyzed the closeout reports to 

determine the extent to which the individual grantees obtained additional 

funding. From a list of 100 grantees from YouthBuild USA that closed their 

operations, we obtained information on a nonprobability selection of 23 

grantees by directly contacting them or from other knowledgeable sources

to determine how HUD funding decisions contributed to their closure. We 

selected and contacted grantees primarily based on those that had 

received more than one grant and which we were able to locate because 

they were still providing other social services. We also reviewed literature 

and reports on Labor’s youth employment and training programs and met 

with officials from Labor, where oversight of the Youthbuild program will 

be transferred. We conducted our work in Boston and Somerville, 

Massachusetts; Washington, D.C.; and various Youthbuild locations in the 

states noted above from March 2006 through February 2007 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Each year, HUD staff scored grant applications based on factors outlined 

in the enacting legislation for serving economically distressed areas and 

detailed in an annual Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). The Housing 

and Community Development Act of 1992 required HUD to establish 

selection criteria such as the qualifications or potential capabilities of 

applicants, the feasibility of the proposed Youthbuild program, the 

potential for developing a successful Youthbuild program, and the 

applicants’ commitment to obtain outside resources. HUD incorporated 

these criteria in an annual NOFA, which directed applicants and detailed

the scoring process for grant awards. The award process has been 

competitive, with HUD having sufficient resources to fund less than onethird of the applicants since 1996. 

Results in Brief 

While HUD requires grantees to submit closeout reports with basic 

performance data, HUD has not verified, aggregated, or analyzed the data 

and conducts limited oversight of grantees. The data in the closeout 

reports were intended for performance assessments; specifically, in its 

Page 4 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
instructions to grantees, HUD states that closeout reports will be used to 

help evaluate the grantees’ programs. Further, in accordance with federal 

performance management standards, accurate and complete performance 

data are needed to inform Congress and the public about the effectiveness 

of programs and help agencies effectively manage and oversee programs.7

HUD officials said that they did not have staff available to verify, 

aggregate, or analyze the closeout reports that they required Youthbuild 

grantees to submit; instead, they contracted with YouthBuild USA to 

collect a set of performance outputs on a quarterly basis, which provides a 

more limited perspective on grantee performance because the data have

not been aggregated for the term of the grants. While HUD has recognized

the importance of performance information by planning for a 

computerized data collection system to capture performance information 

on Youthbuild and other competitive grant programs, the implementation 

has been delayed since 2003 due to funding and technical problems. In 

addition, according to HUD officials, a lack of resources also limited 

assessment and oversight of Youthbuild grantees. For example, HUD field 

offices, which are responsible for overseeing the Youthbuild program, 

typically were limited to visiting and reviewing one or two grantees 

annually. HUD’s monitoring primarily focused on compliance with 

program requirements such as documentation rather than on performance. 

As a result of a lack of verified and aggregated data and analysis and 

limited oversight, HUD largely was unable to tell how well the individual 

Youthbuild grantee programs performed. 

In addition, lack of programwide performance data and analysis limited 

any overall assessment of the success of the Youthbuild program, and 

limited available analyses cannot be used for programwide assessments. 

Since 2002, a few studies have provided some evidence of the success of 

individual Youthbuild programs. While limited in scope, the studies have 

shown that, at a small number of grantees, Youthbuild has been successful

in assisting youth to enter higher education programs and obtain job skills. 

The value of the data that YouthBuild USA collects in its Web-based 

system is limited as well; the data are self-reported and contain little 

information on participant outcomes, partly because grantees are not 

required to follow participants after graduation. To augment limited 

existing data, we analyzed the performance information available in 245 

 7

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and S. Rep. No. 58, 103rd Cong., 1st 

Sess. (1993); Office of Management and Budget Circular (OMB) A-11, Part 6, “Preparation 

and Submission of Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual Program

Performance Reports” (June 2006). 

Page 5 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
closeout reports that HUD supplied to us, which covered 12,863 program 

participants. The results cannot be generalized to the entire program. For 

each of the grantees that reported information, we calculated percentages 

of participants who completed or placed in an education program or in 

employment. The median percentage of participants who obtained a 

general equivalency or high school diploma across all the programs that 

reported information was 28, compared with 36 percent who were placed 

in jobs, and 7 percent who went on to higher education. However, because

the reports lack some baseline information and grantees generally did not 

follow participants after program completion, we were unable to 

determine long-term outcomes such as percentages or number of 

participants receiving degrees or retaining employment. Moreover, while 

closeout reports do include information about impediments to program 

success and “best practices,” HUD did not systematically review this 

information or share it with YouthBuild USA, which is the primary 

technical assistance contractor for the program with responsibilities that 

include identifying new strategies for operating successful programs. As a 

result, the lack of follow-up data and programwide evaluations make it 

very difficult to determine which programs and strategies have worked 

best and assess the performance of Youthbuild over time. As Labor 

assumes program oversight responsibilities, officials said they would 

consider that the closeout reports include program participant data, such 

as degrees obtained prior to program entry and details on participant 

outcomes such as the types of construction jobs obtained and retained 

upon program completion. The officials also told us that they believe 

impediments and best practices should be evaluated and disseminated to 

grantees, but they had not yet determined who would have primary 

responsibility for doing so. 

Grantees had varying success in obtaining funds from outside sources, but 

grant officials told us that HUD funding was critical to attracting the 

leveraged funds. In assessing applications, HUD gave consideration to 

program applicants that were able to secure outside funding. Applicants 

receive points based on the ratio of committed leveraged funds compared 

with the amount of Youthbuild funds requested in the application. Data 

from the closeout reports showed the median amount spent by HUD 

Youthbuild grantees was $400,000 in HUD funds and an additional 

$430,000 from outside sources. However, success in obtaining additional 

funds varied widely, from 21 grants reporting no additional funding 

sources to 40 reporting more than $1 million. While most grantees have 

been successful in generating outside funding, several grant officials told 

us that many existing and potential contributors would not be willing to 

continue funding if they perceived that the program would not be able to

Page 6 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
continue without the HUD grant. YouthBuild USA reported that most 

grantees have had difficulty continuing operations without continued HUD 

funding. Further, YouthBuild USA also noted that grantees with follow-on 

HUD funding achieved better performance outcomes than grantees that 

did not receive subsequent HUD funding. 

This report contains three recommendations for the Secretaries of HUD 

and Labor to analyze closeout reports and share the best practices 

identified, develop post-program performance outcomes and share the 

data with grantees, and consider whether multiyear funding could be 

useful in helping Youthbuild grantees attract additional outside funding.

We provided a draft of this report to HUD and Labor for their review and 

comments. Officials from HUD’s Office of Community Planning and 

Development (CPD) provided comments. They stated that they did not 

disagree with the report’s overall findings, but added that HUD’s oversight 

activity was limited by resource constraints. Labor’s Assistant Secretary 

for Employment and Training wrote that she agreed with our 

recommendation to develop and monitor post program performance 

outcome measures and share data with grantees. She also wrote that 

Labor agreed that there could be value in multiyear funding and that the 

department was considering such an approach for existing grantees. 

CPD manages the Youthbuild program. CPD programs generally fall into 

three categories: (1) formula grants, of which the largest are the 

Community Development Block Grant and the HOME Investment 

Partnership Program, which account for the majority of CPD funding; (2)

competitive homeless programs; and (3) competitive nonhomeless 

programs, including Youthbuild. While no staff are dedicated solely to 

Youthbuild oversight, CPD monitors the program as part of its oversight 

responsibilities for 22 programs and initiatives, which 829 staff (233 in 

headquarters and 596 in field offices) administered as of the beginning of 

fiscal year 2007. In fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $19.1 billion for 

the CPD programs and initiatives, of which Youthbuild represents a small 

portion.8

 The first program appropriation for Youthbuild was $40 million 

for fiscal year 1993. Appropriations reached a high of $65 million in fiscal 

Background 

 8

Appropriations for CPD programs and initiatives in fiscal year 2006 were significantly 

higher than the $8 billion in prior fiscal years because of the approximately $11.5 billion 

Congress added for disaster assistance to five Gulf Coast states affected by hurricanes. 

Page 7 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
year 2002, but dropped to $49.5 million in fiscal year 2006, the last year in 

which HUD was authorized to award grants (see fig. 1).9

Figure 1: Youthbuild Appropriations, Fiscal Years 1993-2006 

Dollars in millions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Source: HUD.

Fiscal year

HUD has provided program funding for Youthbuild through an annual 

competitive grant application process. Any applicant can receive up to a 

$700,000 grant; however, new applicants and rural/underserved applicants 

primarily receive grants up to $400,000. Grant awards can last up to 30

months (or longer if the grantee is given an extension), but some grantees 

use the funds at a much quicker rate and usually reapply every year, while 

others may take the full 30 months. 

Prospective grantees are state, private, nonprofit, and local entities that 

implement the Youthbuild program by serving low-income youth, ages 16 

to 24, who demonstrate educational need—either by virtue of being highschool dropouts or by justifying their need for inclusion in the program. 

According to program regulations, at least 75 percent of the participants 

must come from very low-income families and have dropped out of high 

 9

HUD completed the grant awards process in November 2006. 

Page 8 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
school.10 The program allows up to 25 percent of the youth to have a highschool diploma or have a slightly higher income; however, data developed 

by YouthBuild USA show that most organizations report that less than 25 

percent of participants have high-school diplomas or General Equivalency

Diplomas (GED) upon entering their programs. Also, according to data 

from YouthBuild USA, a number of the youths have been adjudicated 

(judicially determined to be delinquent), were on welfare upon entering 

the program, or lived in public housing (see fig. 2). Other studies we 

reviewed identified similar participant characteristics. Program 

regulations require participants to spend 50 percent of their program time 

receiving job training on construction sites, building affordable housing, 

and 50 percent receiving academic training. Recently, some of the 

Youthbuild grantees have added nonconstruction programs to their 

offerings, such as in the areas of computer repair and health care. Funding 

for the additional programs has come from AmeriCorps.11

 10Very low-income families are those with incomes 50 percent or less of area median 

income. 

11The Corporation for National and Community Service, a public-private partnership, 

administers AmeriCorps. The program allows participants to earn education awards to help 

pay for postsecondary education in exchange for performing community service. 

Page 9 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
Figure 2: Characteristics of Participants Entering YouthBuild USA-Affiliated Programs, 1997-2005 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Percentage

Year

Source: YouthBuild USA.

On welfare

Adjudicated (judicially determined delinquent)

Living in public housing

Note: Participants could have one or more of depicted characteristics. 

In 1994, YouthBuild USA, located in Somerville, Massachusetts, became 

the primary technical assistance contractor for the Youthbuild program. 

YouthBuild USA is a national support center and intermediary for the 

program. As such, it provides training, develops materials and handbooks 

to help grantees replicate the program, conducts peer-to-peer seminars, 

and disseminates materials on best practices. YouthBuild USA also has 

established an affiliated network that grantees can choose to join. As of 

September 2006, 107 of 173 Youthbuild grantees with active grants were 

affiliates. Since 2002, YouthBuild USA has been using a Web-based system, 

WebSTA, to collect participant characteristic and performance data from 

its affiliates. 

Among the purposes of transfering the YouthBuild program to Labor was 

better alignment of existing federal workforce and youth training 

programs. Labor’s Employment and Training Administration offers 

programs that assist disadvantaged youths, similar to the programs that 

Youthbuild grantees offer. The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 

established a variety of programs to serve low-income youths who face 

Page 10 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
barriers to employment. Labor allocates funds for the youth service 

programs to state and local areas based on a distribution formula. The 

grants are made to states, and the states in turn allocate funds to 

approximately 600 local workforce investment boards. The amount of 

funding available to states is determined by the distribution of 

unemployed individuals and disadvantaged youths by state. From 2000 

through 2005, Labor administered the Youth Opportunity Grant program, 

which also was authorized by WIA. This grant program focused on 

improving education and employment opportunities for at-risk youths, 

ages 14 to 21, in high-poverty areas. Funding for the program was 

eliminated beginning in fiscal year 2004. In addition, Labor administers the 

Job Corps program, which began in 1964, and provides education, training 

and support services to economically challenged youths, ages 16 through 

24, who face multiple barriers to employment. Private companies—chosen 

through competitive contracting processes—and other federal agencies 

operating under interagency agreements with Labor, operate the Job 

Corps centers (located throughout the United States and Puerto Rico) on 

behalf of Labor. 

Each year, HUD staff rated and ranked grant applications for serving 

economically distressed areas based on factors outlined in the enacting 

legislation and detailed in an annual NOFA. The Housing and Community

Development Act of 1992 required HUD to establish selection criteria such

as the qualifications or potential capabilities of applicants, the feasibility 

of the proposed Youthbuild program, the potential for developing a 

successful Youthbuild program, and the applicants’ commitment to obtain 

outside resources.12

HUD’s Grant-Making 

Procedures 

Incorporated 

Legislative Criteria 

Accordingly, HUD annually issued a NOFA that described the grant 

application process, outlined criteria for grant awards, and included 

scoring factors (see fig. 3). The major factors considered were the capacity

and relevant experience of the organization (performance), need and

extent of the problem, applicant’s soundness of approach, leveraging of 

nonhousing funds, and ability to show how it would achieve and measure 

results. Under these factors, grant applicants had to consider area poverty

and high-school dropout rates, describe their management and training 

capabilities, and offer proof of access to property and the existence of 

 12HUD program officials also complied with the fairness, transparency, and nondisclosure 

requirements of sections 102 and 103 of the HUD Reform Act of 1989.

Page 11 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
partners to build low-income housing. HUD issued its last NOFA for the 

Youthbuild program on March 8, 2006, and announced the winning 

grantees in November 2006. 

Figure 3: NOFA Point-Scoring System for Fiscal Year 2005 Applications

1 Capacity of the applicant and 

 relevant organizational experience

2 Need/extent of the problem

3 Soundness of approach

4 Leveraging of nonhousing resources

 5 points — Team member composition and experience

 5 points — Organization structure

10 points — Achievement of performance outcomes

 5 points — Poverty rate against the national average

 5 points — Unemployment rate against the national average

 9 points — High-school dropouts against the national average

 3 points — Examples of social and economic decline

 5 points — Coordination elements

15 points — Outreach/recruitment strategy and selection activities

 2 points — Strategy for job placement

10 points — Housing program priority

 4 points — Policy priorities

20

22

36

10

5 How promised results will be 

 achieved and evaluated 12

6 Renewal community/enterprise

 community/empowerment zone 2 (Bonus)

Criteria Points

Source: HUD.

Since fiscal year 2001, HUD has grouped applicants into three separate 

scoring categories—new, general (that are typically awarded to 

established Youthbuild organizations), and rural/underserved area 

grantees. Figure 4 shows the awards by category. The total numbers of 

grants as well as the grants by the individual categories have varied by

year. 

Page 12 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
Figure 4: HUD Awards by Funding Category for Fiscal Years 2001-2006 

Total

Rural and underserved grantees

General grantees

New grantees (including rural and underserved) 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Grantees

Fiscal year

Source: HUD.

2006

The awards process also has been competitive. HUD historically funded 

less than one-third of all the applicants (see fig. 5). Since 1996, the number 

of applicants funded ranged from about 7 to 44 percent. 

Page 13 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
Figure 5: Youthbuild Grant Applications and the Number Funded by Fiscal Year (1996-2006) 

Applications/grants

Year

Source: HUD.

0

100

200

300

400

500

Applications

Grants

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Although HUD requires grantees to submit closeout reports, which are 

intended to help evaluate the programs, it has not verified, aggregated, or 

analyzed data from those reports. Further, the closeout reports do not 

include other data that could help determine participant characteristics 

upon entry or the types of jobs they received after completing the 

program. YouthBuild USA, the technical services provider for HUD, 

collects quarterly information, but it has not aggregated the information to 

obtain performance information over the span of a grant. HUD also has 

encountered significant delays in developing a database intended to gather 

additional performance information from grantees. Finally, citing resource 

constraints, HUD has conducted limited on-site oversight of grantees. As a 

result of a lack of verified and aggregated data or analysis and limited 

oversight, HUD largely was unable to tell how well the individual 

Youthbuild grantees performed. 

HUD Oversight of 

Grantees’ 

Performance Has 

Been Limited 

Page 14 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
HUD requires grantees to submit performance reports, including closeout 

reports, but HUD has not developed or fully utilized information—

particularly from the closeout reports—that could help it assess 

Youthbuild grantee programs and has lacked resources to conduct 

comprehensive oversight of grantees. Such information serves as the basis 

for management and oversight of programs. For instance, HUD states in 

the instructions for filling out the closeout reports that the reports will be 

used to monitor and evaluate progress of grantees and programs. Further, 

the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) shifted the 

focus of federal managers from the number of tasks completed or services 

provided to a more direct consideration of the outcomes or results of the 

program. GPRA provides a performance-based management framework 

for agencies to set goals; measure progress toward those goals; deploy 

strategies and resources to achieve them; and ultimately, use performance 

information to make the programmatic decisions necessary to improve 

performance. Accurate and complete performance data that document 

outcomes are needed to inform Congress and the public about the 

effectiveness of programs and help agencies conduct effective oversight. 

The combination of baseline information and intermediate outputs or 

outcomes can be used to show progress or contribution toward final 

outcomes, that is, the intended results of carrying out the program.13 For 

example, in Youthbuild, baseline information such as the number of 

participants entering a program with and without GEDs or high-school 

diplomas could be combined with intermediate outputs and outcomes 

such as graduation rates and jobs attained, which could then be linked to

desired program outcomes such as the number of Youthbuild participants 

attaining economic self-sufficiency.

HUD Has Not Collected or 

Analyzed Data That Could 

Help It Assess Grantees 

However, HUD has not set up a system to verify, aggregate, or analyze the 

data from closeout reports—information and analyses that would form the 

basis for assessments of grantee performance. Citing resource constraints, 

HUD filed the reports in the individual grant files in headquarters and field 

offices and did not further review them. In addition, some basic baseline 

data are missing from the closeout reports, including the number of 

participants who enter the programs with a GED or high-school diploma. 

Such information is necessary to get an accurate count of the number of 

participants receiving a GED degree or diploma through Youthbuild 

programs and also provides a basis for comparison with which 

performance can be measured. Furthermore, while closeout reports 

 13GPRA; S. Rep. No. 58, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1993); and OMB Circular A-11. 

Page 15 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
require that some performance outputs be collected, including the number 

of participants receiving GEDs or high-school diplomas, placed in jobs, or 

entering higher education programs, the reports do not collect other 

output information such as how many participants were placed in 

construction-related employment. 

Citing resource constraints and a need to comply with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) performance reporting requirements, 

HUD contracted with YouthBuild USA in 2004 to collect quarterly grantee 

performance information for all Youthbuild grantees. Programs 

administered by six federal agencies, including HUD and Labor, are 

subject to “common measures” reporting which OMB established to 

provide agencies with the ability to describe, in a similar manner, their 

core performance outputs across different grantee programs.14 The 

common measures include employment or education placements, degrees 

or certificates attained, and literacy and numeracy skills increased 

(increases in educational functioning). Consequently, YouthBuild USA 

provides HUD with program information including participant gender and 

ethnicity data, GED attainment statistics, grade level improvements, job or 

school placements, and the number of new and rehabilitated housing units 

that were completed. HUD uses the reports to provide performance 

information to Congress and meet OMB reporting requirements. However, 

because the information is captured on a quarterly basis, it only represents

the performance of a program at a particular point in time and YouthBuild 

USA has not aggregated the information to obtain data for the term of 

individual grants. As a result, HUD has been largely unable to track 

program outcomes, but its data will be needed for ongoing program 

assessments.

Moreover, HUD has encountered significant delays in developing a 

database intended to provide additional performance outcomes on grantee 

programs. Recognizing this deficiency, HUD officials said that they have 

been planning for about 3 years to implement an electronic data collection 

system to help HUD measure the success of Youthbuild programs, along 

with its other nonhomeless competitive grant programs. However, the 

system’s implementation has been delayed because of funding and 

technical problems. As a result of not systematically collecting or 

analyzing needed information from closeout reports, relying 

 14In addition to HUD and Labor, the Departments of Education, Health, and Human 

Services, Veterans Affairs, and Interior are subject to the common measures. 

Page 16 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
predominately on limited point-in-time program information, and not being 

able to utilize a planned database to aggregate performance outcomes, 

HUD is limiting its ability to assess grantees. Further, although the 

YouthBuild Transfer Act shifted oversight of grants issued in fiscal year 

2007 to Labor, HUD will be required to continue monitoring existing 

Youthbuild grants for approximately the next 3 years. Therefore, the data

HUD has at its disposal or could develop will continue to be valuable for 

ongoing assessments of the program. 

Citing Resource 

Constraints, HUD 

Performed Limited 

Oversight of Grantees 

In addition to not having or utilizing available performance data, HUD has 

exercised limited on-site review and oversight of grantee performance. 

According to HUD’s Office of Inspector General, on-site monitoring is an 

essential tool for HUD (through CPD) to assess program performance and 

identify and address potential program problems. Such monitoring is also 

useful in motivating grantees to exercise sound judgment in carrying out 

their grant activities. GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government note that controls generally should be in place to ensure that 

ongoing monitoring occurs during normal operations. Monitoring should 

be performed continually, be ingrained in an entity’s operations, be used to

assess the quality of performance over time, and support the prompt 

resolution of any identified problems.15

CPD goals require on-site monitoring of only a small percentage of grants. 

For fiscal year 2003, the plan called for the field offices to monitor 35 

percent of formula grants; 20 percent of competitive homeless grants; and

7 percent of competitive nonhomeless grants, including Youthbuild. HUD 

has since changed its baseline monitoring goals (requiring monitoring of 

20 percent of grantees with active, open grants established since 2004) to

give its field offices more flexibility to meet monitoring priorities based on 

local grantee knowledge. As a result, goals are no longer set by program. 

Field offices decide on the number of formula versus competitive grantees

to be monitored based on risk analyses that evaluate each grantee on 

factors such as the size of the grant, perceived project management 

capacity, grantee responsiveness, and the extent of citizen complaints. 

HUD officials cited a lack of resources as the primary reason for not 

requiring the monitoring of a larger percentage of grantees. In 2006, 

 15GAO issued these standards as required by 31 U.S.C. §3512(c). Also see GAO, Standards

for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: 

November 1999) and Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G 

(Washington, D.C.: August 2001). 

Page 17 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
according to HUD officials, field offices typically had one person working 

part time responsible for overseeing the individual Youthbuild grantees in 

the state, visiting no more than one or two grantees per year. As a result, 

field staff have not been able to comprehensively monitor grantees and 

verify the accuracy of the output data submitted by the grantees. 

In general, we found that the monitoring reports that we reviewed (which 

HUD field offices produced) on grantees primarily addressed various 

compliance issues, rather than reporting on the overall performance of a 

particular grant. For example, several reports identified grantees’ failure to

receive prior approval from HUD for changing proposed job training 

construction sites. Other reports identified inadequate record keeping,

insufficient documentation, and lack of sufficient financial internal 

controls on the part of grantees. However, although a few reports did 

comment on some individual performance outputs, such as job 

placements or GEDs attained, most did not. 

The lack of analysis of performance information of grantees also has 

implications for assessing the Youthbuild program overall, particularly 

because HUD has devoted few staff to overall program management and 

oversight. Since 2000, in headquarters, Youthbuild had a program director 

with one or two staff managing the program each year. During fiscal year 

2006, with the expected program transfer to Labor, the HUD program 

manager was assigned to other duties, and a part-time program manager 

was assigned to oversee the 2006 grant process, in which HUD received 

308 applications and awarded 74 grants. Although they are aware of the 

limited oversight of Youthbuild, CPD division officials said it has provided 

appropriate staff resources for program oversight of Youthbuild grantees,

commensurate with the program’s size—the annual appropriation for 

which represents less than 1 percent of CPD’s usual annual budget of 

about $8 billion. However, without sufficient oversight HUD was unable to 

tell how the individual Youthbuild grantee programs performed. 

Page 18 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
HUD has not performed the programwide analysis needed to determine 

overall program success, and weaknesses in other assessments of the 

programs and data preclude an overall assessment of Youthbuild success. 

While limited in scope, three studies suggest Youthbuild helped youths 

achieve economic self-sufficiency. And, although YouthBuild USA tracks 

performance data, grantees do not have the follow-up information needed

to measure performance outcomes. To augment limited existing data, we 

analyzed information in 245 closeout reports, but the results cannot be 

generalized to the entire program. We found a wide range of results in 

outputs such as job placements; however, because grantees generally did 

not follow up on participants, we were unable to determine long-term 

outcomes such as percentages of participants retaining employment. 

Moreover, while closeout reports include impediments to success and 

“best practices,” HUD did not systematically review this information or 

share it with YouthBuild USA. As a result, the lack of follow-up data and 

programwide evaluations make it very difficult to determine which 

programs and strategies have worked best and assess the performance of 

Youthbuild over time. Labor officials said they would consider that the 

closeout reports include outcomes such as jobs obtained and retained and

said that they believe impediments and best practices should be evaluated

and disseminated to grantees. 

A few studies have provided some evidence of the success of individual 

Youthbuild programs. Although subject to many limitations, the studies 

suggest that identified programs have achieved certain Youthbuild 

objectives. However, without comparable information for the entire 

population of Youthbuild grantees, it is not possible to determine the 

extent to which these outcomes and reported successes are reflective of 

what was achieved by the grantees not included in the studies. More 

specifically:

Incomplete Data on 

Participants’ 

Outcomes Precludes 

an Overall 

Assessment of 

Program’s Success 

A Few Studies Document 

Individual Youthbuild 

Program Successes but 

Are Limited in Scope 

• In June 2004, researchers from Brandeis and Temple Universities 

published a study entitled, “Life after YouthBuild - 900 YouthBuild 

Graduates Reflect on Their Lives, Dreams, and Experiences,” in 

collaboration with YouthBuild USA. The study was based on a survey of

graduates from 11 Youthbuild grant sites and included in-depth interviews 

with 57 graduates from eight of these sites. The researchers determined 

that, for those 882 participants (for a 23 percent response rate) who 

responded to the survey, many are doing well and were helped 

considerably by the Youthbuild program. Many participants found jobs or 

furthered their education and have volunteered in community activities. In

addition, a number of participants surveyed indicated they also obtained 

Page 19 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
intangible benefits from the program, such as increased self-esteem and 

had developed positive attitudes about themselves and their community. A 

limited nonresponse analysis was conducted by YouthBuild USA to 

compare the 882 survey responses and the 57 interviews with one site that

had a 98 percent response rate. However, using one site that had a high 

response rate is not representative and cannot be generalized to the whole 

sample. As such, it is not known if the 77 percent who did not respond 

were doing more or less well than those who responded to the survey. 

• In August 2003, HUD issued a study entitled, “Evaluation of the Youthbuild 

Program,” in which a HUD contractor compared program results and costs 

per participant from the Youthbuild Program and four other federal 

employment and training programs—Job Corps, JOBSTART, both 

designed to serve disadvantage youth, and the youth components of the 

Job Training Partnership Act and Supported Work Demonstration 

programs.16 The researchers conducted their work at 20 Youthbuild sites, 

selected in part because they had received funding for at least two grants, 

obtained a variety of organizational sponsorships, built new or

rehabilitated housing, and covered a variety of funding category sizes. The 

study found that 36 percent of the Youthbuild participants at these sites 

obtained jobs after enrolling and 29 percent obtained either a GED or highschool diploma. In addition, 12 percent of the Youthbuild graduates in the 

20 sites reportedly went onto higher education. However, results at the 

five federal programs were not directly comparable because researchers 

obtained data from Youthbuild program participants at the time they 

exited the program while data from the other programs’ were obtained 

from tracking participants up to 3 years after leaving the program. In 

addition, the limited scope of this study precludes an overall assessment of 

the program’s success. 

• In February 2003, the state of Minnesota issued a study entitled, 

“Minnesota Youthbuild Program: A Measurement of Costs and Benefits to 

the State of Minnesota.” This study analyzed the costs and benefits of the 

state-funded Youthbuild program in Minnesota. The researchers measured 

post-program participant performance outcomes by tracking program year 

participants beyond graduation. They found that Youthbuild graduates 

earned more than double the minimum wage, whereas youth with similar 

characteristics who had not been through the program typically earned

only the minimum wage. In addition, the graduates who had been 

 16The Job Training Partnership Act program was replaced by the Workforce Investment 

Act, which was implemented in 2000. This evaluation included data from 1996 through 1999

when the Job Training Partnership Act programs were still in effect. 

Page 20 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
adjudicated had a considerably lower rate of recidivism (rearrest, 

reconviction, or return to prison) than other youth involved with the 

correctional system.17 Using state administrative data to estimate the 

amount of revenues and savings generated through increased tax revenues 

and reduced prison costs, the study estimated first-year benefits to the 

state of about $1.5 million dollars versus costs of about $877,000. Over a 4- 

year period, the study estimated the total net benefit to the state at about 

$7.3 million (by 2006). The study was limited to costs and benefits directly

related to state programs and did not include potential benefits such as 

reductions to welfare rolls, state-sponsored medical care, or other 

reductions in human services costs.

Since 2002, YouthBuild USA has been using a Web-based system—

WebSTA—to collect participant characteristics and performance data

from its affiliates. According to YouthBuild USA officials, as of December 

2006, about 90 percent of its affiliates were entering data into WebSTA to 

some extent. However, the value of YouthBuild USA’s WebSTA data is 

limited, largely because grantees self-report the data, not all grantees are 

meeting the requirement to send in information, and the information is not 

reported at the grant level. That is, if affiliates have more than one 

Youthbuild grant, the data for each grant are not reported separately. As a

result, the data are not verified, comprehensive, or comparable. Also, 

because the grantees submit the information quarterly, the data provide 

only a point-in-time snapshot of the program’s performance and cannot be

summed to provide annual data. Recognizing these limitations, according 

to YouthBuild USA’s President, upgrades are planned to be implemented 

in early 2007 that will allow grantees to enter data in WebSTA by 

individual grant, which in turn will allow YouthBuild USA to analyze grantlevel performance. 

We also found that the limited depth of the information collected restricts 

the value of WebSTA information for performance assessments. For 

example, WebSTA collects information on participant attendance, 

retention and graduation rates, and initial job and college placements and

YouthBuild USA WebSTA 

Data Have Limitations, 

Particularly for Assessing 

Outcomes 

 17Minnesota Youthbuild program participants entered unsubsidized employment with an

average starting wage of $11.60 an hour. The minimum wage of $5.15 an hour was used as a 

baseline for the comparison group. Fourteen (5 percent) of the participants with one or 

more offenses prior to enrollment were rearrested, reconvicted, or returned to a state 

correctional facility within 2 years after enrollment in the Minnesota Youthbuild program, 

compared with a 20 percent rate of return for juveniles within 2 years of release from 

Minnesota correctional facilities. 

Page 21 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
participant characteristics (such as welfare, public housing, and 

adjudication status) when participants enter Youthbuild programs. 

However, many grantees do not follow up on participants once they leave 

the programs. As a result, they often do not know if students placed in

jobs were still working at those jobs weeks or months later. Also, several 

program directors we visited said that most of their program graduates 

who go on to higher education sign up for free remedial-level courses at 

nearby colleges. Although they have not had the funding to systematically 

follow the students’ progress, some said they generally have found that the 

students have had varying success in advancing to college-level credit 

courses. 

Without grantee-level follow-up systems, WebSTA cannot track program 

outcomes that would reflect whether the graduates are achieving 

economic self-sufficiency—such as the percentage of program graduates 

who remove themselves from the welfare rolls, move out of public 

housing, or stay out of the court system. The system also does not collect

follow-up information on the type of jobs attained (including 

construction), pay raises, benefits received, and college or trade degrees 

or certifications received. Analyzing such performance outcomes could 

provide, HUD, Labor, and other interested parties with the measures 

needed to evaluate overall program performance and success.

Because HUD had not aggregated or analyzed data for Youthbuild, we 

obtained and analyzed 245 closeout reports that grantees submitted to 

HUD. Figure 6 provides selected performance information that we 

summarized from the closeout reports. However, because HUD has not 

established objective performance goals for the program, which would 

serve as baseline criteria against which to judge performance, the 

information related to the experience of the 12,863 participants who 

entered the program under the 245 grants gave us limited perspectives 

about how individual programs were working. In addition, because we had 

information on only 245 (or 46 percent) of the grants, the results cannot be 

generalized to the entire program. 

As shown in figure 6 the percentages for participants graduating, receiving

a GED, or being placed in employment varied widely. As previously 

discussed, HUD has not set benchmarks, and critical data elements 

(baseline data) are missing in the closeout reports. For instance, it is not 

possible to obtain an accurate number of diplomas and GEDs attained 

from the closeout reports because the reports do not contain data on the 

number of participants that enter the program with a high-school diploma 

Closeout Reports We

Analyzed Provided Little 

Detail on Long-Term 

Outcomes Because 

Grantees Are Not Required 

to Follow up on Graduates 

Page 22 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
or GED. As result, we could not determine how well the programs (except 

for those with the very highest percentages) performed individually or in 

comparison with each other. 

Figure 6: Based on Closeout Reports, Youthbuild Performance Measures Indicate Varied Outputs 

Drop outs

Graduates

Number of participants

Participant categories Number

Number of

grantees

reportinga Median participation rate Low High

Obtained a GED or high-school diploma

Placed in employmentd

Went on to higher educationd

12,863

4,663

1,093

4,444

3,868

6,916

37

7

36

28

57

c

b

5

0

0

0

0

88

55

98

76

94

244

242

235

239

240

242

Source: GAO analysis of grantee closeout reports.

Range of

participation rates

for grantees

a

Not all grantees provided information for each category. 

b

Includes 1,239 participants that were reported as still active because they were carried over to a 

subsequent grant or allowed to stay on the books to receive continuing education and other support 

services. In addition, the drop outs, graduates, and still active categories do not sum to the number of 

participants category because all grantees did not report information for each category. 

c

Regulations allow up to 25 percent of the participants who enroll to already have a GED or highschool diploma. As a result, this number may be underrepresentative since the data do not specify 

the number of participants that entered the program with a GED or high-school diploma. 

d

The same participants can be included in the employment and higher education categories. 

The closeout reports also do not provide consistent and reliable data on 

the number of units rehabilitated or built by Youthbuild participants. A 

basic purpose for which Youthbuild was authorized was to expand the 

supply of affordable housing. According to the closeout reports, 158 

grantees reported that their participants built a total of 1,483 new units, 

while 139 grantees reported that their participants rehabilitated a total of 

Page 23 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
2,238 units.18 Some of the Youthbuild program directors with whom we 

met said that during a typical reporting period they would complete from 

one to four new or gut-rehabilitated housing units. Other directors said 

that when a program reports about 200 units rehabilitated, it generally

means the students are performing minor repetitive tasks such as changing

locks or painting a limited number of interior walls. As a result, the 

number of units rehabilitated likely is overstated in the closeout reports. 

Although construction training is a major part of the Youthbuild program, 

HUD’s closeout reports also do not track the number of graduates 

obtaining construction-related jobs or specify the types of jobs obtained 

(construction or otherwise). 

In addition, HUD officials told us that grantees are not required to follow 

up on participants after they leave the program. While some grantee 

officials with whom we met recently had attempted to establish follow-up 

systems, most grantees cited funding constraints as the reason for not 

following up on graduates. Several officials further noted that it was 

difficult to locate many participants after they had left the program. 

However, as a result, it is not possible to obtain comprehensive postprogram results. 

Finally, some program directors with whom we spoke cautioned that any 

follow-up system should not be strictly focused on students obtaining 

higher education degrees or obtaining high-paying jobs. They emphasized 

that such goals were beyond the abilities of some of their participants, but 

that moving from a fifth-grade to a ninth-grade reading level or obtaining a

service sector job sometimes was a real victory and should be counted as

a success. 

Limited Information We

Developed from Site Visits 

Pointed to Varied Results 

for Programs, and Also 

Provided Little Detail on 

Long-Term Outcomes 

The information we obtained from our visits also demonstrates varied 

results for continued employment and academic success, and little detail

on long-term success. As with our closeout report analysis, the 

information cannot be generalized to the universe of Youthbuild 

grantees—although YouthBuild USA officials told us that they believe we 

visited some of the more innovative grantees. For example, although not 

required, some of the nine grantees we visited used other funding sources, 

such as United Way or AmeriCorps funds, to establish a participant follow-

 18Some grantees reported that they used their program to both construct new units as well 

as rehabilitated others under the same grant. 

Page 24 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
up system. As a result, some of the grantees were able to provide us with 

varying amounts of information on the status of program graduates. For 

example: 

• One grantee, which was able to track individuals who completed the 

program since 2001, provided us with data that showed 70 of the 82

program participants were either employed or pursuing higher education. 

Seven of the 70 participants were working and going to school. The hourly 

wages of those employed ranged from $7 to $13.75. However, the grantee

did not have information on the types of employment. 

• Another grantee that recently established a follow-up system showed that 

11 of the 26 program graduates who started in 2004 had obtained 

employment. The positions ranged from pizza delivery person to union 

carpenter. However, only the union carpenter and a graduate hired by the

program as a construction trainer were working in the construction field. 

The hourly wages of the graduates ranged from $5.50 to more than $16 per 

hour for a graduate hired by the grantee. 

• Another grantee used WEBSTA to track continuing education and work 

history, including each job held. The program director told us that such a 

follow-up system allows the program to spot trends, which in turn can be 

used to fine-tune the program. Of 60 graduates from 2002 to 2005, the 

program continually has tracked 53 and reported that 8 are receiving

higher education, 24 are working in nonconstruction jobs, and 16 are 

working in construction jobs. The pay for the graduates ranged from $6.50

to $15 per hour. The grantee continues to keep in touch with the graduates 

by helping them with housing, legal aid, school advice, tutoring, and help 

toward achieving a GED. 

Grantees are not required to collect such post-program follow-up 

information. Yet, both grantees and program participants emphasized that 

the Youthbuild program created a very supportive atmosphere that many 

participants had never experienced prior to joining a program. During our 

visits, we met with students who credited the program with improving 

their lives by either helping get them off drugs, get out of the gang lifestyle, 

or disengage from other activities that likely could have resulted in 

incarceration or worse. The studies we mentioned previously had similar 

findings. However, it is difficult to gain insight into how many program 

participants remain drug free, crime free, in advanced degree programs, or 

working in construction or other trades without post-program 

performance data. It is also difficult to gain insight into which program 

strategies are most effective for serving these youth. 

Page 25 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
Citing resource constraints, HUD did not systematically review the 

impediments and best practices identified in closeout reports or share the 

information in them with YouthBuild USA. In particular, identifying best 

practices (or the converse, impediments) can provide a model for 

improvement for other organizations with similar missions. The closeout 

reports contain a section addressing what the grantees considered to be 

best practices. For example: 

• Several grantees set-up educational opportunities, such as GED 

preparation, at local colleges for participants. Two grantees noted that 

being on a college campus provided a positive experience for the 

participants. Two grantees noted that they made an arrangement with a 

local technical college to offer free enrollment to all participants that 

successfully completed the Youthbuild program. Another grantee noted

that working through community college GED programs allowed them to 

lower their per-student cost and serve more students. 

HUD Does Not Review or 

Disseminate Impediments 

and Best Practices 

Identified in Closeout 

Reports That Could Help 

Improve Program 

Performance 

• One grantee established an alumni council consisting of elected 

representatives from each of its seven graduating classes. All graduates 

receive quarterly mailings that include an alumni newsletter, new job and

educational opportunities, and a quarterly calendar of events.

• Another grantee has maintained a program serving graduates for up to 12 

months to provide on-going employment support, including assistance in

securing a second job in the event that the initial placement did not work 

out. 

• One grantee started a “drug free” club and found that students really 

wanted to participate and were anxious to become drug free and would 

publicly announce their success. 

• Another grantee worked extensively recruiting area college students to 

volunteer to help with tutoring and program community service activities.

Closeout reports also contain information on impediments that grantees 

encountered in implementing and operating the programs. Impediments to 

program success varied in scope and severity. Some of the more 

significant impediments mentioned by numerous grantees included the 

following. 

• Turnover of key staff, especially on-site construction managers; 

• Negative and apathetic attitudes among participants; 

Page 26 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
• Alcohol and drug abuse issues among participants; 

• Difficulties in dealing with municipal organizations to obtain building 

permits and contractual difficulties, which delayed construction training 

activities; and 

• Acceptance of students with very low educational levels, which made 

obtaining high GED levels very difficult. 

HUD’s contract with YouthBuild USA specifically calls for the contractor 

to assist HUD in the management, supervision, and coordination of 

Youthbuild programs by strengthening Youthbuild program design and 

disseminating information on best program practices. Although analyzing 

the impediment and best practices falls within the scope of HUD’s 

contract with YouthBuild USA, two CPD program officials said that HUD 

never considered sharing the reports with its technical services provider. 

YouthBuild USA’s chief operating officer said that the organization would 

welcome access to the closeout reports. The officer said his staff already 

spent many hours each month trying to identify best practices from 

Youthbuild grantees and would be anxious to analyze the closeout reports 

for both the problems and successes identified and forward the 

information to interested grantees. YouthBuild USA’s President told us 

that she not only agreed that reviewing the closeout reports for problems 

and “best practices” would be beneficial, but that she believes the closeout 

reports needed to “be analyzed to get to the bottom line because the total 

impact (outcomes) of a grant could not be determined from data provided 

on a rolling quarterly basis.”19 As a result of not sharing the closeout 

reports with YouthBuild USA, HUD may have missed opportunities to 

improve the program as a whole and help grantees improve performance. 

According to Labor officials, they will consider analyzing information from

the closeout reports to assess and improve the performance of the 

YouthBuild program. Until 2006, Labor assessed past performance of its 

youth employment and training grantees through measures required under 

WIA. For example, under the WIA Youth and Job Corps programs, Labor 

tracked and analyzed 6-month retention and earnings wage change

information. Labor officials told us that they would use OMB’s common

measures to track and analyze the performance of YouthBuild grantees but

Labor Officials Indicated 

They Will Consider Using 

Information from Closeout 

Reports to Assess and 

Improve YouthBuild

Performance 

 19As we previously discussed, the quarterly data cannot be summed to provide an

annualized report. 

Page 27 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
said that they have not finalized the information they would require 

YouthBuild grantees to collect. The officials indicated to us that they 

would consider developing post-program performance outcomes such as 

the types of employment graduates attained and retained (including 

construction), wage rates, and college or trade degrees or certifications 

received. Although Labor may incur some additional costs in developing

such information, the ability to measure program success would improve. 

Labor officials also noted that the information currently contained in the

closeout reports would be considered with other factors they deem as 

pertinent to assessing grantees’ performance. However officials said they

would also likely consider modifying the closeout reports to include other 

program participant data, such as degrees obtained prior to program entry 

and details on the types of construction jobs obtained upon program 

completion. 

Labor officials also acknowledged that information on program 

impediments and best practices should be evaluated and passed to 

grantees and that performance data needed to be aggregated, verified, and 

analyzed to determine which programs and strategies worked best. As of 

October 2006, Labor had not determined whether its Employment and 

Training Administration or an outside contractor would have primary 

responsibility for collecting, aggregating, and disseminating the 

information. 

Our analysis of available closeout reports showed that the grantees have

had varying success in obtaining additional funding sources. In assessing 

grant applications, HUD gave consideration to program applicants that 

were able to secure outside funding. Applicants received points for 

leveraging nonhousing resources compared with the amount of Youthbuild

funds requested in the application. Overall, the median amount spent by a 

HUD Youthbuild grantee was $400,000 in HUD funds; the HUD grant 

represented about 48 percent of the average total spending per grantee, 

which included additional funding sources of about $430,000. However, 

success in obtaining additional funds varied widely, from 21 grants 

reporting no additional funding sources to 40 reporting more than $1 

million (see fig. 7). 

Youthbuild Grantees 

Have Experienced 

Varied Success in 

Obtaining Outside 

Funding Sources, and 

Many Cited Continued 

HUD Funding as 

Crucial 

Page 28 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
Figure 7: Outside Funding Amounts Varied Widely for Grants We Reviewed

According to information in the closeout reports and the officials from the 

grantees that we visited, the additional funding they obtained largely came 

from federal, state, and local agencies, businesses, and charitable 

organizations. According to a YouthBuild USA official, states have 

provided funding to local Youthbuild grantees over the past several years. 

For instance, the Massachusetts State Department of Education has 

provided funding in its budget for the state’s Youthbuild program. The 

Massachusetts funds are provided to existing Youthbuild programs, based 

on a formula the state developed in conjunction with a state coalition of 

Youthbuild grantees. In Minnesota, 10 Youthbuild programs in 2005 shared 

$754,000 in state Youthbuild program funding, which the state 

supplemented with more than $3 million in matching funds from local 

partners. In Minnesota as elsewhere, urban grantees have had greater 

opportunities to obtain funding or in-kind support from local businesses 

and charitable organizations than rural grantees that typically have had 

access to fewer businesses and might not be a focus of charitable activity. 

Regardless of their success in obtaining outside funds, several grantees we 

visited stated that their Youthbuild program could not be sustained 

without the HUD grant because the HUD funding allowed them to attract 

the leveraged funds. Also, several grant officials said that many existing 

and potential contributors would not be willing to continue funding if they 

perceived that the program would not be able to continue without the 

HUD grant. One exception (which we did not visit) was in Minnesota 

where the state Youthbuild program director said that only 4 of the state’s

Number of grants

Outside funding

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

More than $1,000,000

$800,001-$1,000,000

$600,001-$800,000

$400,001-$600,000

$200,001-400,000

$100,001-$200,000

$4,450-$100,000

$0

Source: GAO analysis of HUD Closeout Reports.

Page 29 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
10 programs have had HUD funds in the past, including 2 programs which 

received HUD funding in 2004 through a HUD grant administered by the 

state. The program director added that the structure of the Minnesota state 

Youthbuild program is similar to that of HUD’s, although the programs are 

typically smaller, having from 10 to 25 students. 

Information from YouthBuild USA generally agrees with grantees’ 

contention about the need for continuous HUD funding. Overall, 

YouthBuild USA found that 60 percent of programs that HUD did not fund 

for 2 consecutive years ceased operations, and 90 percent of programs not 

funded for 3 consecutive years ceased operations. According to 

YouthBuild USA, 173 of 462 grantees funded since 1994 currently are 

operating with active HUD grants. YouthBuild USA, also found that 

grantees with continuous HUD funding achieved higher outputs, such as 

GED attainments and job placements, than the ones that did not receive

one or more follow-on grants. According to some grantee officials, that 

success is partly due to continuous funding that allows grantees to 

develop infrastructure and maintain experienced staff to establish a better 

program. In its fiscal year 2005 Performance and Accountability Report, 

HUD noted the benefits of making grants to previous awardees: “Having 

established programs and experience running a Youthbuild program, these 

grantees are more efficient in enrolling students, resulting in a greater 

number of youth trained.” Furthermore, Youthbuild program directors 

with whom we met emphasized the intangible benefit that such 

established programs provide such as a family atmosphere that allows 

graduates to return for advice and support as needed—a benefit that goes 

away when programs close. 

HUD has not kept statistics to find out why some grantees did not reapply 

for additional grants or why grantees did not qualify for follow-up grants. 

Through discussions with a nonprobability selection of 23 of the 100 

grantees that closed programs, we found that some did not reapply 

because they were no longer interested in dealing with at-risk youth and 

others closed due to poor management. But most of the closed grantees 

with whom we spoke said they closed because they lost HUD funding for 

one or more years and were unable to obtain sufficient private funds to 

make up for the lost funding. Of the sites we contacted, two were still in 

operation after ceasing to receive HUD funds—but they appeared to be the 

exception. Both were already operating youth technical training programs 

prior to their first HUD Youthbuild grant. 

In addition, officials from several grantees that also received funding from 

AmeriCorps stated that they preferred the AmeriCorps concept of 

Page 30 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
providing dedicated funds for 3 years. These officials stated that knowing 

that funding levels were longer-term provided more continuity to their 

program, enabled better planning, and allowed them to build a cushion 

through leveraged funding in the event that they did not receive a HUD 

grant for a year or two. Finally, when the question of multiyear funding 

was raised at a Web-based listening session in December 2006, designed to

help Labor identify Youthbuild program administration issues and 

concerns, most participating grantees spoke out in favor of multiyear 

funding. 

HUD has not taken advantage of several opportunities to use existing 

information for purposes of program assessment and oversight. Such 

opportunities should not be ignored, particularly because HUD has limited 

resources with which to assess and oversee current grantees. Specifically, 

HUD has not verified, aggregated or analyzed closeout reports, which 

grantees are required to submit. HUD also has conducted limited oversight 

of grantees, citing resource constraints; the impending transfer of 

oversight to Labor bodes no change to this specific situation. However, 

given these conditions, analysis of existing closeout reports would help 

provide crucial information on the performance of the Youthbuild 

programs, particularly in the absence of a centralized HUD database that 

could be used to track program performance. At a minimum, the closeout 

reports form a logical basis for providing useful information that HUD, 

Labor, and other interested parties can use to judge the performance of 

Youthbuild. HUD still will maintain an active involvement for several more 

years, so coordination between Labor and HUD will be critical to 

producing reliable assessments of how successful the program has been

and will be. HUD also does not share reported constraints and best 

practices with the technical services contractor it pays for performing 

such work and disseminating best practices. By not utilizing performance 

data and sharing information, HUD has missed opportunities to determine 

whether the overall Youthbuild program has achieved its intended results, 

among them enabling disadvantaged young adults to gain economic selfsufficiency. Therefore, Congress and the public also lack the information 

needed to make such determinations. 

Labor has experience in managing youth training and education programs 

and collecting performance information, and Congress transferred 

Youthbuild to Labor in part to better align the program with existing 

federal workforce development and youth training programs. In offering 

perspectives for Labor to consider, we stress the value that closeout 

reports have in the absence of more comprehensive and programwide 

Conclusions 

Page 31 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
data, although the existing reports lack certain elements that could help 

program managers determine and report on outcomes. The reports do 

contain valuable information on impediments and best practices, which 

could provide both program managers and grantees with much broader 

perspectives on how successful the program has been and suggestions for 

improvements. Labor has indicated that it would consider developing postprogram performance outcomes such as the types of jobs graduates 

attained and retained (including construction), wage rates, and college or 

trade degrees or certifications received. As a result, while there may be 

some additional costs involved, the ability to measure program success 

would improve. And, because alternatives to the HUD data are limited, the 

grant-level assessment discussed above could act as the building blocks of

an overall program assessment. Labor also has agreed that information on 

impediments and best practices would be valuable and ought to be passed 

on to grantees, but has not yet determined how this might be done. 

Finally, data on grantee success in attracting other funding, although 

limited, offer more perspectives for Labor to consider because outside 

funding helps leverage limited federal dollars. While many grantees have 

obtained extensive outside funding and support, YouthBuild USA has 

found that very few operated for more than a few years without continued

HUD funding. Tellingly, their data show that 90 percent of programs not 

funded by HUD for 3 consecutive years ceased operations. According to 

YouthBuild USA officials, their data indicate that grantees with repeat 

awards also produced better outcomes such as a higher level of job 

placements. Further, when HUD funding stopped, potential contributors 

became concerned that grantees would no longer stay in business and 

were reluctant to jeopardize their own funds. These data, while not 

definitive, do suggest that multiyear funding has the potential to produce 

dividends for the program. Many grantees expressed similar belief in the 

benefits of longer term funding at a Department of Labor YouthBuild 

program listening session. 

To improve the reporting and assessment of performance for Youthbuild 

grantee programs and develop the bases for an overall assessment of the 

program, we are making the following three recommendations: 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

• that the Secretary of HUD analyze closeout reports by grant and share 

information on identified problems and “best practices” with its technical 

services contractor and Labor; 

Page 32 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
• that the Secretary of Labor develop and monitor post-program 

performance outcome measures for the YouthBuild program, such as the 

types of employment graduates attained and retained, wage rates, and 

degrees or certifications received, and share the data with the grantees; 

and 

• that the Secretary of Labor consider whether multiyear funding could be

useful in helping YouthBuild grantees attract additional outside funding. 

We provided HUD and Labor with a draft of this report for review and 

comment. HUD’s comments are summarized below. Labor’s Assistant 

Secretary for Employment and Training provided written comments that 

are presented in appendix I. 

Officials from HUD’s Office of Community and Planning and Development 

provided comments. They stated that they did not disagree with GAO’s 

overall findings, but added that HUD’s oversight responsibility was limited 

by resource constraints. They cited the fact that the Youthbuild program 

represents 0.63 percent of the Community Planning and Development 

Division’s entire portfolio. Nevertheless, because HUD will have 

monitoring responsibilities for existing grants for 3 years or more, we 

believe it is important that HUD analyze the closeout reports in order to 

provide Labor with information about how current grantees are 

performing. 

Labor’s Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training wrote that she 

believes that the report will be very useful to Labor as it assumes 

responsibility for administering the YouthBuild program. She noted that 

Labor agreed with our recommendation to develop and monitor post 

program performance outcome measures for the YouthBuild program and 

share these data with grantees. She added that Labor was building a Webbased Management Information System to collect and report on 

participant information. Finally, she wrote that Labor agreed that there 

could be value on multiyear funding and that the Department was 

considering such an approach for existing grantees. 

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional 

committees and the Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development and 

Labor. We will also make copies available to others upon request. The 

report will also be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 33 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
If you or your staff have questions regarding this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-4325 or shearw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Public and Congressional Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in

appendix II. 

William B. Shear 

Director, Financial Markets 

 and Community Investment 

Page 34 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Appendix I: Comments from the U.S. Acknowledgments 

Department of Labor 

Page 35 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 36 GAO-07-82 Youthbuild Program
Appendix II: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 37 GAO-07-82 

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

William B. Shear, (202) 512-4325, shearw@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Andy Finkel, Assistant Director; 

Rich LaMore, John McGrail, Marc Molino, Luann Moy, Barbara Roesmann, 

and Tom Taydus made key contributions to this report. 

 Youthbuild Program

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(250279) 
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. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (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 www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER