United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on

Labor and Human Resources, U.S.

Senate

June 1995 JOB CORPS

High Costs and Mixed

Results Raise

Questions About

Program’s

Effectiveness

GAO/HEHS-95-180

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-261067 

June 30, 1995

The Honorable Nancy Landon Kassebaum

Chairman, Committee on Labor

 and Human Resources

United States Senate

Dear Madam Chairman:

Job Corps is an employment and training program aimed at providing

severely disadvantaged youth with a comprehensive array of services,

generally in a residential setting. Administered by the Department of

Labor, Job Corps provides funds directly to public, private, and nonprofit

organizations to operate local centers. Job Corps is the most expensive

federal youth employment and training program, with current

appropriations of about $1 billion. The administration has proposed

expanding the program over the next several years, adding 50 centers to

the 111 Job Corps centers in operation today and increasing student

capacity, currently about 41,000, by 50 percent. While expansion of the

program is planned, concerns have been raised recently by the Congress,

the Department of Labor’s Inspector General, and others about the

program’s effectiveness and its high cost.

In light of these concerns, you requested that we provide you with

information on the program’s operations. Specifically, you were interested

in (1) who is being served and the services provided, (2) the outcomes the

program is achieving in relation to the program’s cost and employers’

satisfaction with Job Corps students they hire, and (3) Labor’s use of

national contractors to provide vocational training services.

To address your request, we met with Labor officials responsible for Job

Corps, analyzed national data on program participants, and visited six Job

Corps centers to obtain detailed information on their costs and services

and the outcomes achieved. We also conducted a telephone survey of

employers to obtain information on job retention and employers’ degree of

satisfaction with Job Corps students’ preparation for work. We did our

work from December 1994 through May 1995 in accordance with generally

accepted government auditing standards. (See app. I for a more detailed

discussion of our scope and methodology and app. II for a detailed

discussion of the survey of employers who hired Job Corps students.)

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

Results in Brief We found that Job Corps is serving its intended population—severely

disadvantaged youth—and provides them with intensive services in a

residential setting, factors that account for the program’s high cost. Of the

approximately 63,000 students who left Job Corps in the year ending

June 30, 1994, our analysis shows that 68 percent had two or more barriers

to employment, such as not having a high school diploma, lacking basic

skills, receiving public assistance, and having limited English proficiency.

Because Job Corps provides a comprehensive program of services in a

controlled, residential environment, nearly half of its expenditures for this

period were for residential living expenses and the wide range of services,

such as social skills instruction, which includes learning self-control and

arriving on time for appointments. About 20 percent of the funds was

spent for basic education and vocational skills training.

While Job Corps reported nationally that 59 percent of its students

obtained jobs (and another 11 percent enrolled in further education

programs), we found that about half of the jobs obtained by students from

the six sites we visited were low-skill jobs—such as fast food worker—not

related to the training provided by Job Corps. Nationally, a little over

one-third of the 63,000 students completed their vocational training. Yet, at

the six sites we visited, we found that students who completed their

vocational training were five times more likely to get a training-related job,

and training-related jobs paid 25 percent higher wages ($6.60 an hour

versus $5.28 an hour). Furthermore, we estimate that about 40 percent of

funds at these sites was spent on students who did not complete their

vocational skills training.

Our survey of employers who hired Job Corps students showed that

employers were generally satisfied with the students’ basic work habits

and the specific technical training the program provided. Although these

students did not work long for their initial employer—88 percent were no

longer in their initial job—the majority of employers said they would hire

them again. However, our survey raised serious concerns about the

validity of reported job placement information. Despite Job Corps’ job

placement verification procedures, about 15 percent of the placements in

our sample were potentially invalid: a number of employers reported that

they had not hired students reportedly placed at their businesses, and

other employers could not be found.

We have questions about whether Job Corps’ long-standing practice of

awarding sole source contracts to national contractors for about a third of

Job Corps’ vocational training is cost effective. A principal justification for

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

these contracts, some of which have been awarded for 25 years or more, is

the contractors’ ability to place students nationwide. However, Labor

lacked the data needed to determine how many placements, in fact, were

made by national training contractors. According to Job Corps data, nearly

half of all job placements were found by the student, family, or friends.

Thus, it is unclear whether Job Corps benefits from the nationwide

placement network of the national training contractors. Furthermore,

most of the training the contractors provide is in the construction trades,

which represent a small proportion of employment in the United States

and which has declined over the past several years.

Background Job Corps was established in 1964 to address employment barriers faced

by severely disadvantaged youth throughout the United States. Thirty

years later, it remains as a nationally operated program at a time when

responsibility for other federal training programs, most notably the Job

Training Partnership Act (JTPA), has been delegated to state and local

agencies.

In program year 1993,1

 the most recent 1-year period for which complete

spending and outcomes data were available, about three-fourths of the

program’s total expenditures of about $933 million was for center

operating costs, such as staff salaries, equipment, maintenance, and

utilities (see fig. 1). The remaining funds were used for student allowances

and payments; contracts for outreach, screening, and placement services;

contracts with national training providers; and facilities construction,

rehabilitation, and acquisition.

1

Program year refers to the 12-month period from July 1 through June 30. Program year 1993 covers

the period from July 1, 1993, to June 30, 1994.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

Figure 1: Distribution of 1993 Job

Corps Expenditures

•

4%

National Training Contracts

•

5%

Outreach, Screening, and

Placement Contracts

11% • Student Support Costs

• 7%

Other

73%•

Center Operating Costs

Note: “Other” includes costs associated with facilities construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition;

curriculum and staff development; and data and property management support.

Source: Job Corps data.

Currently, 111 Job Corps centers are located throughout the United States,

including Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico (see fig. 2). Although most

states have at least one center, four states have no centers—Delaware,

New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Wyoming—while several states have

four or more centers (California, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Oregon, New York,

Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington). Private corporations and nonprofit

organizations, selected through a competitive procurement process,

operate 81 centers; the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, as

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

required by law,2 directly operate 30 centers, called civilian conservation

centers, under interagency agreements.

Figure 2: Location of Job Corps Centers

Contract Center

Civilian Conservation Center

2

Section 427 of JTPA, as amended by the Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992, states that no

funds may be used to carry out any contract with a nongovernmental entity to administer or manage a

civilian conservation center of the Job Corps.

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

While the program’s capacity has fluctuated over the years since its

establishment, the current capacity closely approximates its original size.

In 1966, about 41,900 slots were available at 106 centers. Today,

approximately 41,000 slots are available at 111 centers, ranging in size

from 120 slots at a center in California to 2,234 at another center in

Kentucky. Appendix III lists the centers, their student capacity, and their

operating costs for program year 1993.

Job Corps enrolls youth aged 16 to 24 who are economically

disadvantaged, in need of additional education or training, and living in a

disruptive environment. Enrollments are voluntary, and training programs

are open-entry and self-paced, allowing students to enroll throughout the

year and to progress at their own pace. Individuals enroll in Job Corps by

submitting applications through outreach and screening contractors,

which include state employment service agencies, nonprofit organizations,

and private for-profit firms. On average, students spend about 8 months in

the program but can stay up to 2 years.

Each Job Corps center provides services including basic education,

vocational skills training, social skills instruction, counseling (for personal

problems as well as for alcohol and drug abuse), health care, room and

board, and recreational activities. Each center offers training in several

vocational areas, such as business occupations, automotive repair,

construction trades, and health occupations. These programs are taught by

center staff, private contractors, or instructors provided under contracts

with national labor and business organizations. Participation in Job Corps

can lead to placement in a job or enrollment in further training or

education. It can also lead to educational achievements such as attaining a

high school diploma and reading or math skill gains.

One feature that makes Job Corps different from other federal training

programs is its residential component. For example, employment training

services under JTPA, the federal government’s principal job training

program for the economically disadvantaged, are provided in a

nonresidential setting. Under Job Corps, 90 percent of the students live at

the centers, allowing services to be provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a

week. The premise for boarding students is that most come from a

disruptive environment and therefore can benefit from receiving education

and training in a new setting where a variety of support services are

available around the clock. The residential component is a major reason

the program is so expensive.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

While in the program, students receive allowance and incentive payments.

For example, initially a student receives a base allowance of about $50 per

month, increasing to about $80 per month after 6 months. In addition,

students are eligible to receive incentive bonuses of between $25 and $80

each if they earn an exceptional rating on their performance evaluations,

held every 60 days. Students can also earn bonuses of $250 each for

graduating from high school or receiving a general equivalency diploma,

completing vocational training, and getting a job. Students receive an

additional $100 if the job is related to the vocational training they received

while in Job Corps. Students obtain jobs through a variety of mechanisms,

including finding the job on their own, being referred by their vocational

instructor, and being placed by the Job Corps center or a contracted

placement agency.

The last comprehensive study of the effectiveness of the Job Corps

program was done nearly 15 years ago.3

 While that study concluded that

the program was cost effective—returning $1.46 to society for every dollar

being spent on the program—more recently, audits by Labor’s Inspector

General,4

 media reports, and congressional oversight hearings have

surfaced issues and concerns with the program’s operations. Among these

are concerns about the quality of training and outcomes in relation to

program costs, incidents of violence occurring at some centers, and the

overall management of the program.

Job Corps’ Clientele

and Services Result in

Higher Costs Than

Other Programs

The Job Corps program is the most expensive employment and training

program that Labor administers, spending, on average, four times as much

per student as JTPA. According to Labor’s program year 1993 figures, the

cost per Job Corps terminee averaged about $15,300.5

 In contrast, the cost

per youth terminee (aged 16-22) in JTPA averaged about $3,700.6

The

3

Evaluation of the Economic Impact of the Job Corps Program: Third Follow-up Report, Mathematica

Policy Research, Inc. (Sept. 1982). Labor initiated another study of Job Corps in 1994 to analyze the net

impact of the program. Initial results from this study, also conducted by Mathematica, will be available

in 1997.

4

Statement of Charles C. Masten, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Labor, before the Senate

Committee on Labor and Human Resources (Oct. 4, 1994).

5

A terminee is a person who has left the program for any reason, including dropping out for personal

reasons, returning to school, or getting a job. Average cost is equal to the total program year 1993

appropriation divided by the total number of terminations.

6

Average cost is equal to the total program year 1993 appropriations for JTPA title II-C—the year-round

training program for youth—divided by the total number of terminations. The average length of stay in

the title II-C program was about 8 months in program year 1993.

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

clientele targeted by Job Corps, as well as the comprehensive services

provided to the students, contributes to the high cost of the program. Job

Corps seeks to enroll the most severely disadvantaged youth who have

multiple barriers to employment. We compared characteristics—at the

time of program enrollment—of the 63,000 program year 1993 Job Corps

terminees with the 172,000 comparable youth terminees from JTPA.

7

Using JTPA’s definition of hard-to-serve clients, we compared those

characteristics that could be commonly applied to both programs—being a

school dropout, being deficient in basic skills (reading and/or math skills

below the eighth grade), receiving public assistance, and having limited

English proficiency.8

 We found that the percentage of Job Corps students

with a combination of two or more of these employment barriers was

much greater than it was for JTPA participants—about 68 percent of all Job

Corps terminees nationwide compared with 39 percent of JTPA terminees9

(see fig. 3).

7

For this comparison, we used JTPA out-of-school participants aged 16 to 24 who terminated from

training programs funded under titles II-A and II-C.

8

These characteristics are identified in the Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992 and are also

discussed in our report, Job Training Partnership Act: Services and Outcomes for Participants with

Differing Needs (GAO/HRD-89-52, June 9, 1989).

9

We recognize there are other characteristics considered to be barriers to employment, such as being a

criminal offender or having a poor work history. These other characteristics, however, were not

commonly defined or uniformly collected under both programs.

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

Figure 3: Comparison of Job Corps

and JTPA Participants With Multiple

Employment Barriers

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

None or One Two or More

Multiple Employment Barriers

Job Corps

JTPA Out-of-School Youths

Source: Job Corps and JTPA data.

To address the needs of students with multiple employment barriers, Job

Corps provides a comprehensive range of services. Among these services

are those associated with the residential component and instruction in

social skills. Residential living services include meals, lodging, health and

dental care, and transportation. Social skills instruction is a structured

program that teaches 50 skills, including working in a team, asking

questions, dealing with anger, learning self-control, handling

embarrassment, and arriving on time for appointments. Taken together,

expenditures for residential living and social skills instruction accounted

for about 44 percent of the program year 1993 Job Corps operating costs

nationally. At the six centers we visited, we obtained detailed information

on program year 1993 expenditures for various Job Corps activities and

found that about 45 percent of the funds was spent on residential living

and social skills instruction, whereas about 22 percent went for basic

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

education and vocational training and 21 percent for administration (see

fig. 4).

Figure 4: Spending on Program

Activities at the Six Centers

21% • Administration

22% • Basic Education and Vocational

Training

22%•

Social Skills Instruction

•23%

Residential Living

•12%

Other

Note: “Other” includes cash payments to students, outreach and placement costs, and child care

expenses.

Source: Job Corps centers’ data.

The One-Third Who

Complete Vocational

Training Have Better

Outcomes

While Job Corps reported nationally that in program year 1993 about

59 percent of the 63,000 students who left the program obtained jobs,10

only 36 percent of Job Corps students complete their vocational training

(see fig. 5). At the six centers we visited, we found that almost half the

jobs obtained by students were low-skill jobs not related to the training

provided. However, the students who completed vocational training at

these centers were 5 times more likely to obtain a training-related job at

wages 25 percent higher than students who did not complete their

training. Yet, about 40 percent of program funds at the six centers was

spent on students who did not complete vocational training.

10Another 11 percent were enrolled in further education programs.

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

Figure 5: Most Job Corps Students

Leave Without Completing Vocational

Training

22% • Early Dropouts

40% • Vocational Noncompleters

•36%

Vocational Completers

2%

Other

Note: “Other” includes those students who were in the program for at least 60 days but never

entered a vocational training program.

Source: Job Corps data.

Using program year 1993 results, five of the six centers we visited would

not have met Labor’s current standard for measuring vocational

completion—56 percent of vocational enrollees in the program for at least

60 days should complete their vocational training. At the 6 centers we

visited, we analyzed the outcomes for the 2,449 students who had been

enrolled in Job Corps for at least 60 days and who also had entered a

vocational training program11 and found that about 44 percent of the

students completed their vocational training. As shown in figure 6, the

proportion of these students who completed vocational training programs

ranged from about 18 percent at one center to about 61 percent at

another—overall, about 30 percent completed vocational training.

11At the six centers we visited, about 27 percent of program year 1993 terminees dropped out of Job

Corps before they had completed 60 days, and another 3 percent remained in the program for 60 days

or longer but never entered vocational training.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

Figure 6: Proportion of Students

Completing Their Vocational Training Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

ABCDEF

Job Corps Center

Source: Job Corps centers’ data.

Overall, students who completed vocational training were 50 percent more

likely to obtain a job than those students who did not complete it

(76 percent versus 49 percent, respectively). Furthermore, we found that

those students who completed their vocational training were more likely

to get a training related job than those who did not complete it.12

Comparing the types of jobs obtained by students who did and did not

complete their vocational training, we found that students who had

completed their training were five times more likely to obtain a job that

was training related. At the six centers we visited, about 37 percent of the

students who had completed vocational training obtained training-related

jobs (see fig. 7). In contrast, only 7 percent of those students who did not

complete their training obtained training-related jobs. For example,

training-related jobs for students who received health care training

included nurses’ assistant, physical therapy aide, and home health aide; for

those who received training in the skilled construction trades,

training-related jobs included painter, carpenter, and electrician. Overall,

about 14 percent of all program year 1993 terminees at the six centers

12For each student who obtained a job at the six centers, we used the Dictionary of Occupational Titles

and other available information to compare the training received with the job obtained.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

received training-related jobs (this consisted of 11.4 percent vocational

completers and 2.8 percent noncompleters).

Figure 7: Program Outcomes at the Six

Job Corps Centers Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Positive

Outcomes

Obtained a Job Obtained a

Training-Related

Job

Vocational Training Completers

Vocational Training Noncompleters

Note: Positive outcomes include obtaining a job, entering or returning to school, or entering the

military for those in the program for 60 or more days.

Source: Job Corps centers’ data.

Furthermore, we found that the average wage paid to the students who

obtained these training-related jobs was 25 percent higher than the

average wage paid to students who did not obtain training-related

jobs—$6.60 versus $5.28 per hour. About two-thirds of the jobs obtained

by students who did not complete their training were in low-skill positions

such as fast food worker, cashier, laborer, assembler, and janitor.

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

In order to get a better picture of how much the program spends in

relation to the outcomes attained, we analyzed program costs with respect

to the amount of time that students spent in the program at the six centers.

We determined that the average cost per student day was $65—ranging

from $51 per day at one center to $119 at another center. We used this

computation to calculate the cost of various program outcomes at the six

centers. At these centers, vocational completers, on average, remained in

the program longer than those who did not complete training (400 days

versus 119 days, respectively). As a result, these centers spent

considerably more on vocational completers. For example, the cost per

student who completed vocational training, on average, was $26,219

compared with $7,803 for students who did not complete vocational

training. Yet, because less than a third of the students completed

vocational training, a large proportion of the centers’ program

funds—approximately 40 percent, or about $19 million—was spent on

students who did not complete the training. As shown in figure 8, most

centers spent at least 50 percent on students who completed their

vocational training. However, one center spent only about 25 percent of its

funds on students who completed their vocational training. Nationally,

about 66 percent was spent on students who completed vocational

training.

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

Figure 8: Proportion of Funds Spent

on Students Completing Their

Vocational Training at the Six Centers

Percent of Funds

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

ABCDEF

Job Corps Center

Source: Job Corps centers’ data.

Employers Satisfied

With Job Corps

Students

On the basis of our survey of employers of a random sample of Job Corps

students from the six centers, we found that employers were generally

satisfied with the basic work habits and technical preparation of the Job

Corps students they employed. Although students did not remain with

these employers for very long (about one-half worked 2 months or less),

the majority of employers said they would hire them again.

Because neither Labor nor the Job Corps centers had information on

student job retention, we contacted the employers of a random sample of

413 students who obtained jobs. Our survey of employers was intended to

validate reported placement data, determine job retention periods, and

gauge employer satisfaction with students’ basic work habits and specific

technical skills provided by the Job Corps program (see app. II for a

detailed description of our methodology). Of the employers who

responded, 79 percent rated the Job Corps students’ basic work habits

average to excellent. In addition, for those employers reporting that the

job matched the training, 85 percent believed the students were at least

moderately prepared to handle the technical requirements of the job.

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

Students who obtained jobs upon leaving Job Corps tended not to remain

with those employers for very long. Of those students for which we

obtained employment information, about 88 percent were no longer

working with their initial employer.13 As shown in figure 9, approximately

30 percent of the students who were no longer employed in their initial job

worked less than a month, while about 20 percent worked 6 months or

longer. According to the employers, the predominant reasons students

were no longer employed were that they quit (45 percent), were fired

(22 percent), or were laid off (13 percent).

Figure 9: Retention Period for Job

Placements for Sample of Students

From Six Centers Visited

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 Month

or Less

1-2

Months

2-3

Months

3-6

Months

6-12

Months

More

Than 12

Months

Retention Period of Initial Job

Source: Job Corps centers’ data.

Reported Job Placements

Inaccurate

Our employer survey gave us information that raises concerns about the

validity of Job Corps-reported job placement statistics. We tried to contact

employers for 413 students who Labor reported as having been hired. In 34

instances, employers reported they had no record of having hired the

student. Another 2 employers stated they had hired a student, but the

student never reported for work. Furthermore, another seven students

13Because we interviewed employers and not students, we do not know what happened to the students

after they left their initial job.

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

were not employed, but were placed with an employment agency or

enrolled in JTPA training. Thus, about 10 percent of the reported job

placements appeared to be invalid.

We were also unable to find the employer of record for almost 10 percent

of our sample of students (an additional 39 students) using both the

telephone number listed in Labor’s records and directory assistance.

According to Labor, placement contractors verify 100 percent of the job

placements, and Labor regional offices re-verify a sample of at least

50 percent of reported job placements.14

We provided Labor, at its request, detailed information on the 34 students

that employers reported they had no record of hiring and the 39 whose

employers we were unable to locate. Labor responded that, in the short

time it had available, it was able to verify employment for 44 of these 73

students. However, our review of Labor’s documentation showed that it

provided additional evidence to support only 18 placements (12 of the 34

and 6 of the 39). For many of the remaining placements, Labor merely

provided the original documents that were on file when we initially

attempted to verify employment. In other instances, the data differed from

the original documents with respect to the employer and employment

dates of record, or verification was made by the student or a relative and

not an employer. Thus, we continue to question 15 percent of the

placements included in our sample.15

Questionable Basis

for National Contracts

A substantial part of Job Corps’ vocational training is provided by national

contractors on a sole source basis. Our work directed at this long-standing

practice raises questions about whether the program and its students are

benefiting from this arrangement. On the basis of our review of Labor data,

it is uncertain whether the results achieved by the national contractors are

much better than those achieved by other Job Corps training providers.

Labor has been awarding sole source contracts to nine national unions and

one building industry association for over a decade—15 years for one

contractor and over 25 years for several others. Its justification for making

sole source awards, rather than using full and open competition, is based

14As of July 1, 1995, Labor’s regional office verification will be replaced by a follow-up survey of job

placements to determine employment status 13 weeks after students leave the program.

15The six centers reported that about 61 percent of the 2,449 students who were in the program for at

least 60 days obtained jobs. However, on the basis of the results of our employer survey, a more

accurate job placement rate for these students would be 52 percent.

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

on three broad factors: (1) the contractor’s past relationship with Job

Corps, that is, experience with Labor’s Employment and Training

Administration in general and Job Corps specifically, and its thorough

knowledge of Job Corps procedures and operation; (2) the contractor’s

organizational structure, that is, a large nationwide membership related to

a trade, and its strong relationship with national and local apprenticeship

programs; and (3) the contractor’s instructional capability, that is,

qualified and experienced instructors; ability to provide training

specifically developed for the learning level of Job Corps students; and the

ability to provide recognition of training as credit toward meeting the

requirements of a journeyman. National contractor expenditures during

program year 1993 totaled $41 million, about one-third of Job Corps’

overall expenditures for vocational training. (See app. IV for a listing of the

national contractors, contract awards, and the year of their initial award

from Labor.)

While Labor officials stated that a primary justification for awarding sole

source national contracts is that the contractors’ maintain an extensive

nationwide placement network, it is unclear whether the national

contractors are any more successful in placing Job Corps students in jobs

than are other training providers. According to Labor officials, because

these organizations are national in scope, they can identify job openings,

regardless of geographic location, and place Job Corps students in the

positions. Thus, they are not constrained by the local job market in

seeking jobs for their students. However, Labor’s data show that,

programwide, very few of the job placements for those trained by national

training contractors in program year 1993 were attributed to the national

contractors. According to Labor data, the largest number of job

placements (48 percent) were made by “self, family, or friend,” whereas

only 3 percent were made by national contractors.

The percentage of job placements by national contractors at the six

centers we visited was even smaller. Labor data show that less than

1 percent of the placements were made by these contractors. Labor

officials acknowledged that the data in their system do not accurately

reflect the extent to which national contractors place students because

their system was not designed to capture this information. On the other

hand, they could not tell us how many placements, in fact, were made by

the contractors. Thus, it is unclear whether Job Corps benefits, as

contended by Labor officials, from the national contractors’ nationwide

placement network.

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

Another reason Labor used in justifying national sole source contracts is

that the union contractors are considered to be an effective means for

getting Job Corps students into apprenticeship programs. Labor data show

that 12 percent of the students in program year 1993, who went through

national contractor-provided vocational training courses for at least 90

days were placed in apprenticeship programs. However, we have no basis

to determine whether this is acceptable, because Labor does not specify a

target level for entry into apprenticeships.

Using Labor’s national data, we found only moderate differences in the

performance of the national contractors as compared with other Job

Corps training providers. In program year 1993, the national contractors

had a programwide job placement rate of 59 percent compared with

54 percent for other Job Corps training providers, and a training-related

job match of 44 percent compared with 36 percent for others.

Comparisons at the six centers we visited were similar, with a job

placement rate of 64 percent for national contractors compared with

59 percent for other Job Corps training providers, although the

training-related job match was higher—42 percent compared with

30 percent.

The national contractors account for about one-third of Job Corps’

vocational training expenditures and the training they provide is primarily

in a declining occupational category—the construction trades—which

represents about 4 percent of the job market. About 84 percent of national

contractor training is in construction-related occupations. Similarly, Job

Corps in general emphasizes training in the construction trades.

Nationally, about one-third of the program year 1993 terminees were

enrolled in construction-related training. Similarly, at five of the six

centers we visited, about one-third of the terminees, collectively, were

trained in one of the construction trades. These trades encompass a

number of occupations, including carpenter, cement mason, and

bricklayer. Our analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that over

the past 8 years (1986-1993) the proportion of construction-related jobs in

the labor market has declined by almost 10 percent.

Conclusions While Job Corps provides extensive services to a severely disadvantaged

population—a program design that inherently leads to high costs—our

evaluation has surfaced several issues that we believe merit further

investigation. We noted that completing vocational training appears to be

very important to achieving a successful program outcome, yet only a little

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

over one-third of the students complete their vocational courses. As a

result, a substantial portion of Job Corps’ funds (40 percent at the six sites

we visited) is being spent on noncompleters. Turnover is high among

students in their initial job following Job Corps training. The overall

implication of this is unknown; are students moving to other, and perhaps

better, jobs, or are they becoming unemployed? We also have serious

concerns about the validity of reported job placements. These statistics

may be overstated by 9 percentage points at the six centers where we

conducted our site work. We will continue to pursue these issues.

Our work raises questions about Labor’s use of national training

contractors to provide a substantial portion of its vocational training. A

primary justification for using national contractors is that they are better

able to place students in jobs through their nationwide placement

network. However, according to Labor data, nearly half of all job

placements were found by the student, family, or friends. The use of

national contractors may have been prudent in the past, but times have

changed. The shifting composition of the labor market, particularly the

decline in the construction trades; the high proportion of vocational

training funds allocated to national contractor training; and Labor’s lack of

information to support its justification for these national contracts, raises

questions about whether this is the most cost-effective approach to

vocational training.

Recommendation to

the Secretary of Labor

To ensure that Job Corps vocational training programs are provided in the

most efficient and effective manner, we recommend that Labor revisit

whether the continued use of national training contractors is cost

effective.

Agency Comments In comments on a draft of this report, Labor expressed concerns about

certain aspects of our report. In response to our recommendation on the

use of national contractors, Labor agreed to review the practice of

contracting with national training providers on a sole source basis. The

following summarizes its concerns and provides our response. (Labor’s

comments are printed in app. V.)

Labor pointed out a number of items in our report that it believes should

be modified or clarified, and we have done so where appropriate.

Specifically, we have modified our characterization of program growth

over the years, included information on a new study of Job Corps’ net

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

impact, revised the percentage of vocational completers nationwide, and

revised our presentation of Job Corps student job retention. In addition,

we have made a number of other technical changes to our report to

respond to Labor’s comments.

Labor expressed concern that we did not recognize other program

outcomes, such as general equivalency diploma (GED) attainment, and

based our conclusions only on vocational completion and job placement.

GED attainment and gains in reading and math skills are quantifiable

program outcomes experienced by many Job Corps students. In our view,

these outcomes are a means to an end—that is, providing students with

the basic educational skills needed in the world of work—and not an end

in and of themselves. These other measures are an adjunct to the principal

measures of vocational completion and job placement. In fact, Labor’s

own literature—Job Corps in Brief, Program Year 199316—states that

“Employment and enrollment in full-time education or training are the

only positive outcomes recognized by Job Corps in its performance

measurement systems.”

Labor agreed that, as our report states, Job Corps is more costly than

other JTPA programs because of its residential nature and the severely

disadvantaged population targeted by the program. However, Job Corps

suggested a number of alternative cost-effectiveness comparisons, such as

comparing Job Corps with community colleges. Our purpose in making the

cost comparison with the JTPA title II-C program was to provide context for

Job Corps’ high cost, not to show cost effectiveness. Therefore, we

believe, and Labor agrees, that using JTPA title II-C for cost comparison

purposes is relevant. As for comparing Job Corps’ completion rates and

cost effectiveness with other institutions like community colleges, this was

not the purpose of our report, and we would need to do additional work to

try to make a relevant comparison. We do not believe that Labor has

justified the relevance of the comparisons made in its comments because

the populations served and institutions’ purposes are vastly different from

the Job Corps.’

Labor also stated that our cost data, which showed that 40 percent of

expenditures at the six centers we visited was spent on noncompleters,

was not representative of Job Corps as a whole. In developing our data, we

computed an average cost per student day using the centers’ program year

1993 total costs and total number of paid days for all students. We applied

this in turn to the total student days spent in the program by completers

16Department of Labor, 1994.

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

and noncompleters. We believe that our methodology results in a fair

allocation of costs to these student categories. While acknowledging that

our computations may be true for the six centers, Labor claims that the

national average expenditures for noncompleters was 34 percent in

program year 1993. Nonetheless, we believe that a substantial amount of

program resources is being spent on students who fail to complete their

vocational training programs. Using Labor’s estimate, Job Corps spent

about $328 million on noncompleters in program year 1993.

Labor also took issue with our finding that Job Corps’ reported job

placement information is often inaccurate. Using information on

questionable job placements from our telephone survey, Labor undertook

an effort to verify these placements. Our examination of the

documentation Labor used to support its verifications shows that many of

these placements remain questionable. Of the 73 questionable placements

on which we provided information to Labor, it was able to provide

additional evidence supporting 18 placements. We continue to question

the remaining placements because Labor provided no additional

information beyond that which was on file at the time of our initial

verification attempts. In all, we continue to question 15 percent of the

placements included in our sample.

Labor also raised concerns that we used inappropriate data in concluding

that the use of national training contractors to provide vocational training

raises questions about whether this is a cost-effective approach. Labor

states that the 3-percent placement rate we cite is based on data not

designed for this purpose. Our report acknowledges Labor’s assertion that

the data do not accurately reflect the extent to which national contractors

place students. However, of greater importance is Labor’s

acknowledgement that it does not know how many placements were made

by the contractors, a primary justification for the continuation of 25 years

of sole source contracts. As a result, Labor is paying a substantial portion

of its vocational training funds to national contractors but is unable to

assess how effective they are in placing students in jobs. Therefore, we

believe that our conclusion and related recommendation remain valid. In

addition, Labor has agreed to review its practice of contracting with the

national training providers on a sole source basis.

Labor also took exception with our discussion of the Job Corps program’s

emphasis on training in the construction trades. While acknowledging that

the construction trades have declined as a proportion of the total job

market, Labor stated that they have increased in the total number of jobs,

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
B-261067 

about 80,000 jobs over the 8-year period 1986-93. Labor also pointed out

advantages associated with employment in the construction trades and

that it may be the most appropriate training for many students. We do not

disagree with Labor’s assertion that training in the construction trades

may be beneficial for some students. Nonetheless, we believe that a valid

question remains about whether it is appropriate for Job Corps to spend

over one-third of its vocational training funds on an occupational category

that makes up about 4 percent of the labor market.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor; the

Director, Office of Management and Budget; relevant congressional

committees; and other interested parties.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call

Sigurd R. Nilsen at (202) 512-7003 or Wayne J. Sylvia at (617) 565-7492.

Other major contributors include Thomas N. Medvetz, Dianne Murphy,

Jeremiah F. Donoghue, Betty S. Clark, and Marquita Harris.

Sincerely yours,

Linda G. Morra

Director, Education and

 Employment Issues

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Scope and

Methodology

26

Site Visits 26

National and Regional Job Corps Offices 27

Data Analysis 28

Appendix II 

GAO’s Employer

Survey

29

Sampling Strategy 29

Survey Instrument 30

Survey Response 30

Sampling Errors 31

Nonsampling Errors 31

Appendix III 

Job Corps Centers, by

Department of Labor

Region

33

Appendix IV 

National Training

Contractors

37

Appendix V 

Comments From the

Department of Labor

38

Tables Table I.1: Job Corps Centers Selected for Site Visits 27

Table II.1: Population and Sample Sizes by Site 30

Figures Figure 1: Distribution of 1993 Job Corps Expenditures 4

Figure 2: Location of Job Corps Centers 5

Figure 3: Comparison of Job Corps and JTPA Participants With

Multiple Employment Barriers

9

Figure 4: Spending on Program Activities at the Six Centers 10

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Contents

Figure 5: Most Job Corps Students Leave Without Completing

Vocational Training

11

Figure 6: Proportion of Students Completing Their Vocational

Training

12

Figure 7: Program Outcomes at the Six Job Corps Centers 13

Figure 8: Proportion of Funds Spent on Students Completing

Their Vocational Training at the Six Centers

15

Figure 9: Retention Period for Job Placements for Sample of

Students From Six Centers Visited

16

Abbreviations

CCC civilian conservation center

GED general equivalency diploma

JTPA Job Training Partnership Act

SPAMIS Student Pay, Allotment and Management Information System

SPIR Standardized Program Information Report

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

We designed our study to collect information on the characteristics of Job

Corps students, the services they were provided, and the outcomes they

achieved, including employers’ satisfaction with the students hired. We

also obtained information on program year 1993 expenditures and the use

of national contractors to provide vocational training. In doing our work,

we interviewed Job Corps officials at the national and regional levels and

conducted site visits at six judgmentally selected Job Corps facilities.

We augmented the information collected during the site visits with data

from Labor’s Student Pay, Allotment and Management Information System

(SPAMIS), a database containing nationwide Job Corps data on all program

year 1993 terminees. We also obtained selected data on participants aged

16 to 24 included in Labor’s Standardized Program Information Report

(SPIR), a database containing information on program year 1993 JTPA

terminees from titles II-A and II-C (programs for economically

disadvantaged adults and youth, respectively). This additional data

allowed us to compare, nationwide, the characteristics of terminees from

Job Corps and JTPA.

We also administered a telephone survey to employers of a random sample

of Job Corps students who obtained jobs within 6 months after leaving the

program. The methodology employed in this survey is discussed in greater

detail in appendix II.

Site Visits We conducted site visits at six Job Corps centers during the period

December 1994 through April 1995. We selected the sites judgmentally to

provide a mixture of Job Corps centers that were (1) located in different

Job Corps regions (to provide geographic dispersion); (2) rated among

high and low performers according to the Job Corps ranking of

performance indicators; (3) operated as civilian conservation centers (CCC)

and contractor-operated centers; and (4) operated by different center

contractors. Table I.1 lists the centers visited and the characteristics of

each.

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

Table I.1: Job Corps Centers Selected

for Site Visits

Center

Location/

region

Ranka

(out of

109)

Student

capacity

1993 center

operating

costs Contractor/ CCC

Great Onyx

Civilian

Conservation

Center

Mammoth

Cave, KY/

Region 4

107 214 $4,035,113

CCC—Dept. of

Interior, National

Park Service

Guthrie Job

Corps Center

Guthrie, OK/

Region 6

92 630 8,137,074

Contractor—

Wackenhut

Educational

Services, Inc.

San Jose Job

Corps Center

San Jose,

CA/

Region 9

4 440 8,369,266

Contractor—

Career Systems

Development

Corp.

Westover Job

Corps Center

Chicopee,

MA/

Region 1 62 555 10,351,200

Contractor—EC

Corp.

Wolf Creek

Civilian

Conservation

Center

Glide, OR/

Region 10

17 231 5,020,105

CCC—Dept. of

Agriculture,

Forest Service

Woodland Job

Corps Center

Laurel, MD/

Region 3

18 300 5,761,553

Contractor—

Adams and

Associates

aLabor ranking for the 4-month period ending October 31, 1994.

During these site visits, we interviewed center directors on various aspects

of center operations, toured the facilities, and reviewed center records.

Using the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and other guidance, we

analyzed the jobs students obtained relative to the training received to

determine whether these jobs were training related. We also compiled

detailed cost information using individual center financial records to

determine the true nature of expenditures—how much was being spent for

administration, basic education and vocational training, social skills

instruction, residential living, and other support services.

National and Regional

Job Corps Offices

We interviewed Labor officials at both the national and regional offices to

obtain an overview of Job Corps operations and budgeting procedures,

including how funds are tracked at the national level; reporting

requirements for each level of oversight; and methods used for cost

allocations. We also collected information on the contracting process,

including information on the national training contracts; contracts for

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

center operators; and, to some extent, those awarded for outreach,

screening, and placement services.

Data Analysis We analyzed Labor data to determine whether Job Corps was serving

severely disadvantaged youth—its intended population. We used

individual-level data and performed univariate and cross-tabulation

descriptive procedures to compare selected characteristics of about 63,000

Job Corps terminees with those of about 172,000 JTPA out-of-school

terminees aged 16 to 24 from titles II-A and II-C for program year 1993.

Using SPAMIS and SPIR databases, we compared those characteristics

considered to be barriers to employment that were commonly defined and

uniformly collected by both Job Corps and JTPA. These characteristics

included (1) being a school dropout, (2) having basic skills deficiencies

(that is, reading or math skills below eighth grade), (3) receiving public

assistance, and (4) having limited English proficiency.

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix II 

GAO’s Employer Survey

To provide information on employers’ perceptions about the training

provided by the six Job Corps Centers we visited, we surveyed by

telephone the employers of a random sample of students from each of

these six centers. Sampled students are representative of the population of

students at these six centers who had terminated from the program during

program year 1993 with at least 60 paid days at the center, and who

obtained employment within 6 months after leaving the program. The final

sample contained 413 cases representing a population of 1,524 students.

To identify this population, we used data files provided to us by the six

centers. We verified and, where appropriate, augmented the data with

SPAMIS data files from the Department of Labor. Using the telephone

numbers provided in the data files, we telephoned the employers of the

sampled students during the month of May 1995. We asked employers

about students’ job tenure and about their satisfaction with students’ work

habits and specific technical skills.

We directed the survey to those officials most knowledgeable about

employment histories and placement information. Our analyses are based

on responses from employers of 92 percent of the sampled students.

Findings from the survey were statistically adjusted (weighted) to produce

estimates that are representative for each of the six sites and for the six

sites combined. All data are self-reported, and we did not independently

verify their accuracy.

Sampling Strategy We used the data provided by the six centers and augmented it, as

necessary, with the SPAMIS database to develop a data file. The file

contained all required information for each member of our target

population—Job Corps program terminees from program year 1993 who

had been in Job Corps for at least 60 paid days and who had received jobs

within 6 months of leaving the program. Using the Statistical Package for

the Social Sciences sampling routine, we selected a simple random sample

for each site. The population for the 6 sites ranged from 96 to 425 students,

for a total of 1,524. The sample for the 6 sites ranged from 49 to 81

students, for a total of 413. Table II.1 contains population and sample sizes

by site.

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix II 

GAO’s Employer Survey

Table II.1: Population and Sample

Sizes by Site

Site

Population

size

Sample

size

Guthrie 425 81

Westover 311 76

Wolf Creek 197 67

San Jose 318 76

Woodland 177 64

Great Onyx 96 49

Total 1,524 413

Survey Instrument During our survey, we asked employers to verify placement information,

including job titles and hiring dates; provide corrected information, when

appropriate; and provide job tenure information. We also asked employers

to assess students’ work habits, technical skills, and whether the observed

length of stay was average for that job. Interviewers used an electronic

form of the survey, prepared using Questionnaire Programming Language,

and entered the data directly into a computer file. Interviewer files were

collated and processed on a site-by-site basis, base weights and

nonresponse weights were calculated and attached to the file, the data

from the six sites were merged, and all identifying data were removed. The

responses contained in this report represent combined weighted

responses for all six sites.

Survey Response We telephoned the employers of the 413 originally sampled students

during the month of May 1995. Of the 413 students in the original sample,

55 were found to be ineligible for our survey. We considered a student

ineligible if his or her employer’s phone number was incorrect or

disconnected and we could not obtain a new one, or if the employer did

not have records available to verify the student’s employment. Subtracting

these ineligible students from our original sample yielded an adjusted

sample of 358 students.

At least three attempts were made to contact the employer of each of the

358 students. After repeated calls, we were unable to reach and/or

interview the employers of 28 of these students. These 28 cases were

classified as nonrespondents. We were able to reach and complete

interviews with the employers of the other 330 sampled, eligible students.

Dividing the number of students with whom we completed interviews by

the adjusted sample yields a response rate of 92 percent.

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix II 

GAO’s Employer Survey

The survey questions about employer satisfaction with students proved to

be very sensitive. In about 46 percent of the 330 interviews, employers

declined to answer these particular questions about the students because

of company policies or concerns about protecting the privacy of the

student or the employer.

Sampling Errors All sample surveys are subject to sampling error, that is, the extent to

which the results differ from what would be obtained if the whole

population had been administered the questionnaire. Since the whole

population does not receive the questionnaire in a sample survey, the true

size of the sampling error cannot be known. However, it can be estimated

from the responses to the survey. The estimate of sampling error depends

largely on the number of respondents and the amount of variability in the

data.

For this report, site-level estimates are not provided, and therefore

sampling errors at the site level were not calculated. For the estimates for

the six centers combined, the sampling error ranges between +/- 3 and +/-

9 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level.

Nonsampling Errors In addition to sampling errors, surveys are also subject to other types of

systematic error or bias that can affect results. This is especially true when

respondents are asked to answer questions of a sensitive nature or to

provide factual information that is inherently subject to error. Lack of

understanding of the questions can also result in systematic error. Bias can

affect both response rates and the way that respondents answer particular

questions. It is not possible to assess the magnitude of the effect of biases,

if any, on the results of a survey. Rather, possibilities of bias can only be

identified and accounted for when interpreting results. This survey had

two major possible sources of bias: (1) sensitivity of certain issues and

questions and (2) bias associated with all telephone surveys due to

inability to reach the sampling target.

The employer ratings of employees’ workplace behaviors requested by our

survey are sensitive to several factors. For example, the particular rating

provided by an employer may have been influenced by his/her ability to

recall the specific habits and abilities of a particular individual in response

to our questions. It also may have been affected by his/her overall like or

dislike of the individual irrespective of the particular behaviors in

question.

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix II 

GAO’s Employer Survey

Furthermore, some employers declined to provide any information about

satisfaction with employees’ performance and technical skills. This

reluctance may have had any number of unknown causes, including an

unwillingness to report poor performance or an internal policy prohibiting

the disclosure of any performance information.

A second kind of bias may result from our inability to reach every sampled

employer because of their inaccessibility by telephone. Certain types of

businesses could not be reached because of various problems including

the presence of answering machines or the inaccuracy of information

contained in the data files. To the extent that businesses using answering

machines are different than those that do not, there could be bias in the

type of employer we were able to reach. Additionally, while we made

every attempt to ascertain correct information, in some cases we were

unable to do so. To the extent that errors in the data file provided by Job

Corps are not random, bias of an unknown direction or magnitude could

be present in the nature of the responses we received.

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix III 

Job Corps Centers, by Department of Labor

Region

Center Location

Capacity (no.

of students)

1993 center

operating costs

Labor Region 1

Connecticut New Haven, CT

200

None in program

year 1993a

Grafton North Grafton, MA 300 $5,878,575

Northlands Vergennes, VT 280 5,317,520

Penobscot Bangor, ME 335 5,538,357

Westover Chicopee, MA 555 10,351,200

Labor Region 2

Arecibo Garrochales, PR 200 2,444,710

Barranquitas Barranquitas, PR 200 2,448,890

Cassadaga Cassadaga, NY 240 4,494,029

Delaware Valley Calicoon, NY 400 6,551,680

Edison Edison, NJ 530 10,458,982

Gateway Brooklyn, NY 224 4,855,173

Glenmont Glenmont, NY 340 5,961,516

Iroquois Medina, NY 240 3,146,621

Oneonta Oneonta, NY 370 7,185,715

Ramey Ramey, PR 335 3,886,715

South Bronx Bronx, NY 250 4,994,719

Labor Region 3

Blue Ridge Marion, VA 200 3,234,731

Charleston Charleston, WV 430 7,454,286

Flatwoods Coeburn, VA 224 4,533,948

Harpers Ferry Harpers Ferry, WV 210 4,168,946

Keystone Drums, PA 700 12,029,134

Old Dominion Monroe, VA 350 6,487,000

Philadelphia Philadelphia, PA 225 2,991,100

Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA 700 10,078,168

Potomac Washington, DC 490 11,071,835

Red Rock Lopez, PA 318 6,187,535

Woodland Laurel, MD 300 5,761,553

Woodstock Randallstown, MD 505 9,715,920

Labor Region 4

Atlanta Atlanta, GA 515 8,316,401

Bamberg Bamberg, SC 220 3,878,828

Batesville Batesville, MS 300 5,402,274

Brunswick Brunswick, GA 400 6,753,099

(continued)

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix III 

Job Corps Centers, by Department of Labor

Region

Center Location

Capacity (no.

of students)

1993 center

operating costs

Earle C. Clements Morganfield, KY 2,234 31,117,772

Frenchburg Mariba, KY 168 3,443,618

Gadsden Gadsden, AL 286 4,225,774

Gainesville Gainesville, FL 350 6,137,251

Great Onyx Mammoth Cave, KY 214 4,035,113

Gulfport Gulfport, MS 280 4,292,821

Jacksonville Jacksonville, FL 250 4,372,323

Jacobs Creek Bristol, TN 224 5,533,056

Lyndon B. Johnson Franklin, NC 205 3,919,404

Kittrell Kittrell, NC 350 5,715,127

Knoxville Knoxville, TN 378 5,506,012

Miami Miami, FL 300 3,759,092

Mississippi Crystal Springs, MS 405 5,914,168

Oconaluftee Cherokee, NC 210 3,439,312

Carl C. Perkins Prestonsburg, KY 245 3,799,539

Pine Knot Pine Knot, KY 224 4,115,302

Schenck Pisgah Forest, NC 224 4,191,612

Turner Albany, GA 1,030 16,067,348

Tuskegee Tuskegee Institute, AL 240 3,951,455

Whitney Young Simpsonville, KY 400 4,602,027

Labor Region 5

Atterbury/

Independence

Endinburg, IN

750 11,661,160

Blackwell Laona, WI 205 4,162,487

Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH 225 4,739,297

Cleveland Cleveland, OH 470 8,692,576

Dayton, OH Dayton, OH 300 5,388,925

Detroit, MI Detroit, MI 275 4,498,397

Golconda Golconda, IL 230 4,767,518

Grand Rapids Grand Rapids, MI 360 6,225,487

Hubert H. Humphrey St. Paul, MN 290 5,314,081

Joliet Joliet, IL 360 6,332,053

Labor Region 6

Albuquerque Albuquerque, NM 415 5,711,572

D. L. Carrasco El Paso, TX 415 5,976,726

Cass Ozark, AR 224 3,915,388

Gary San Marcos, TX 2,200 30,705,260

Guthrie Guthrie, OK 630 8,137,074

(continued)

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix III 

Job Corps Centers, by Department of Labor

Region

Center Location

Capacity (no.

of students)

1993 center

operating costs

Laredo Laredo, TX 251 3,096,931

Little Rock Little Rock, AR 200 3,569,860

McKinney McKinney, TX 650 9,284,753

New Orleans New Orleans, LA 290 2,608,022

Ouachita Royal, AR 187 3,684,104

Roswell Roswell, NM 225 4,325,266

Shreveport Shreveport, LA 350 5,139,171

Talking Leaves Tahlequah, OK 250 4,089,941

Treasure Lake Indiahoma, OK 236 3,657,108

Tulsa Tulsa, OK 300 5,017,272

Labor Region 7

Denison Denison, IA 300 5,737,025

Excelsior Springs Excelsior Springs, MO 495 9,683,053

Mingo Puxico, MO 224 4,095,359

Pine Ridge Chadron, NB 224 4,401,219

St. Louis St. Louis, MO 604 11,225,637

Flint Hills Manhattan, KS 250 4,649,908

Labor Region 8

Anaconda Anaconda, MT 224 4,666,551

Boxelder Nemo, SD 208 4,061,719

Clearfield Clearfield, UT 1,320 24,738,524

Quentin Burdick Minot, ND 250 71,131b

Collbran Collbran, CO 200 3,762,499

Kicking Horse Ronan, MT 224 3,609,301

Trapper Creek Darby, MT 224 4,155,049

Weber Basin Ogden, UT 224 3,847,838

Labor Region 9

Hawaii Honolulu, HI 352 7,352,534

Inland Empire San Bernardino, CA 310 6,599,755

Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 735 13,204,607

Phoenix Phoenix, AZ 415 6,466,877

Sacramento Sacramento, CA 412 7,581,920

San Diego Imperial Beach, CA 650 11,359,422

San Jose San Jose, CA 440 8,369,266

Sierra Nevada Reno, NV 600 12,278,161

Treasure Island San Francisco, CA 120 2,218,078

Fred G. Acosta Tucson, AZ 270 4,957,787

(continued)

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix III 

Job Corps Centers, by Department of Labor

Region

Center Location

Capacity (no.

of students)

1993 center

operating costs

Labor Region 10

Alaska Palmer, AK 250 3,172,897

Angell Yachats, OR 216 4,244,143

Cascades Sedro Woolley, WA 327 7,001,311

Columbia Basin Moses Lake, WA 250 4,255,623

Curlew Wauconda, WA 198 4,285,921

Fort Simcoe White Swan, WA 224 4,665,485

Marsing Marsing, ID 210 3,668,870

Springdale/

Tongue Point/PIVOT

Troutdale, Astoria,

Portland, OR 725 11,557,880

Timber Lake Estacada, OR 234 4,816,403

Wolf Creek Glide, OR 231 5,020,105

aCenter established in 1993.

bA newly established center, in operation for only 6 weeks in program year 1993.

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix IV 

National Training Contractors

Contractor

Awarda

(millions)

Year of initial

award

AFL/CIO Appalachian Council $ 3.3 1974

Home Builders Institute 13.2 1974

International Brotherhood of Painters

and Allied Trades 3.6 1969

International Masonry Institute 2.7 1971

International Union of Operating Engineers 2.1 1966

National Maritime Union of America 2.7 1979

National Plasterers and Cement Masons

International Association 4.5 1970

Transportation-Communication International

Union 3.9 1972

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and

Joiners of America 4.9 1968

United Auto Workers 2.1 1978

Total $43.0

aAward amount is for the last annual contract period.

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 47 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 48 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Labor

(205269) Page 49 GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/HEHS-95-180 Job Corps Program