United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requester

YOUTH 

OPPORTUNITY 

GRANTS 

Lessons Can Be 

Learned from 

Program, but Labor 

Needs to Make Data 

Available 

December 2005 

 

GAO-06-53 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

December 2005

YOUTH OPPORTUNITY GRANTS

Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, 

Highlights of GAO-06-53, a report to but Labor Needs to Make Data Available 

congressional requester 

The Youth Opportunity Grant 

program (YO) represented an 

innovative approach to improving 

education and employment

opportunities for at-risk youth by

targeting resources in high poverty 

areas and incorporating strategies

that experts have identified as 

effective for serving this 

population. The Department of 

Labor (the Department) awarded

36 grants in 2000, and the program 

continued for 5 years. The 

Department had used a similar 

approach on a smaller scale in

previous programs, but little 

information is available on the

impact of these other programs. In 

order to understand what can be 

learned from the Youth 

Opportunity Grant program, GAO 

examined the grantees’ 

implementation of the program, 

challenges they faced, and what is

known about the program’s

outcomes and impact. To view 

selected results from GAO’s Webbased survey of the Program 

Directors, go to GAO-06-56SP. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the

Secretary of Labor take the actions

necessary to complete the impact 

analysis of the Youth Opportunity

Grant program and release the data 

and all related research reports

from the program’s evaluation. In

comments on GAO’s draft report,

the Department agreed with GAO’s 

recommendation to complete the 

impact analysis and publish all 

related reports. 

Grantees used a variety of approaches to build the infrastructure of the YO 

program, provide services to at-risk youth, and conduct outreach efforts. 

While grantees set up centers and trained core staff to deliver services, they 

differed somewhat in their approaches, depending on circumstances within 

their communities. In addition, grantees employed a combination of 

strategies to provide youth services, including collaborating with other 

providers and inventing unique programming. To recruit this hard-to-serve 

target population, grantees used a range of techniques, from partnering with 

juvenile justice agencies, to combing malls for eligible youth. 

Fast program start up, conditions in their communities, and the 

characteristics and needs of the youth challenged the grantees; however they

used features of the program design to address some of these difficulties. 

Many grantees struggled to set up the program, especially within the 

Department’s time frame. In addition, grantees felt encumbered by the drugs,

violence, and a lack of jobs in their communities as well as the obstacles 

facing their clients, such as low academic achievement and lack of family

support. Grantees used the discretion and other components built into the 

program design to address many of these challenges. For example, in 

response to safety concerns, an urban grantee elected to provide 

transportation for youth attending evening events. However, grantees and 

others said more planning time would have been beneficial. 

Grantees and others reported that the youth and their communities made 

progress toward the YO program goals, but the program’s impact is still 

under study. Grantees reported that they had enrolled about 91,000 youth 

nationwide, many of whom completed high school, entered college, or found 

employment after enrolling in the program. In addition, grantees and others 

said that the grants had benefited their communities. However, without an 

impact analysis, it is not known whether these events would have occurred 

in the absence of the program. The Department contracted for a $24 million 

evaluation of the program that included plans for an impact analysis; 

however, agency officials are unsure if the analysis will be completed. 

Manchester Point Arena Youth Opportunity Center, Calif.

Source: GAO.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-53.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact David Bellis at 

(415) 904-2272 or bellisd@gao.gov.
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 4

Grantees Carried Out the Program Using a Variety of Approaches 10 

Grantees Used Program Design to Address Major Challenges, but 

Found Start-up Time to be Short 16 

Grantees and Others Reported That Participants and Their 

Communities Made Progress, but the Program’s Impact Is Still 

under Study 20 

Conclusions 23

Recommendation for Executive Action 24 

Agency Comments 24 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 26 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Labor 28 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 29 

Related GAO Products 30 

Table 

Table 1: YO Program Areas, Corresponding Youth Activities, and 

Examples of Implementation 14 

Figures 

Figure 1: Location of Youth Opportunity Grantees 6 

Figure 2: Key Components of Youth Opportunity Grant Program 8 

Figure 3: Photos of YO Centers 12 

Figure 4: Number of Youth Who Signed up for, Participated in, and 

Achieved at Least One Educational or Employment Goal 

of the Program 21 

Page i GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
Abbreviations 

CIMC California Indian Manpower Consortium 

ISY In-school youth 

MIS Management information system 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OSY Out-of-school youth 

YO Youth Opportunity Grants 

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-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

December 9, 2005 

The Honorable Arlen Specter 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, 

 Education, and Related Agencies 

The Honorable Arlen Specter 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, 

 Education, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

More than 5 million youth between the ages of 16 and 24 were jobless and 

out of school in 2001, according to a recent study,

1

 and young people living

in high poverty areas face particularly difficult barriers to employment and 

education. A variety of factors make this population hard to serve, 

including low levels of academic attainment, limited work experience, and

a scarcity of jobs in their communities. Much remains to be learned about 

the best ways to help these youth connect with education and employment 

opportunities. A 2003 report by the White House Task Force for 

Disadvantaged Youth concluded that a lack of rigorously collected 

program evaluation data has limited the potential for gaining insight into 

the strategies that are most effective for serving these youth.

More than 5 million youth between the ages of 16 and 24 were jobless and 

out of school in 2001, according to a recent study,

1

 and young people living

in high poverty areas face particularly difficult barriers to employment and 

education. A variety of factors make this population hard to serve, 

including low levels of academic attainment, limited work experience, and

a scarcity of jobs in their communities. Much remains to be learned about 

the best ways to help these youth connect with education and employment 

opportunities. A 2003 report by the White House Task Force for 

Disadvantaged Youth concluded that a lack of rigorously collected 

program evaluation data has limited the potential for gaining insight into 

the strategies that are most effective for serving these youth.

One program that explored innovative strategies was the Youth 

Opportunity Grant program, authorized under the Workforce Investment 

Act of 1998.2

 This was a 5-year, $1 billion program aimed at increasing the 

educational attainment and long-term employment of youth residing in 

impoverished areas. The program was the successor to several prior 

demonstration programs that were based on a similar model. Through the 

Youth Opportunity Grants awarded under the program, the Department of 

Labor targeted funds to 36 localities with high poverty rates and employed 

a comprehensive approach for attempting to improve opportunities for atrisk youth living in these communities. All 14 to 21 year-olds residing in 

the target areas, regardless of income, were eligible to receive services, 

One program that explored innovative strategies was the Youth 

Opportunity Grant program, authorized under the Workforce Investment 

Act of 1998.2

 This was a 5-year, $1 billion program aimed at increasing the 

educational attainment and long-term employment of youth residing in 

impoverished areas. The program was the successor to several prior 

demonstration programs that were based on a similar model. Through the 

Youth Opportunity Grants awarded under the program, the Department of 

Labor targeted funds to 36 localities with high poverty rates and employed 

a comprehensive approach for attempting to improve opportunities for atrisk youth living in these communities. All 14 to 21 year-olds residing in 

the target areas, regardless of income, were eligible to receive services, 

 1

 Andrew Sum, Ishwar Khatiwada, Nathan Pond, and Mykhaylo Trub’skyy, Left Behind in

the Labor Market: Labor Market Problems of the Nation’s Out of School, Young Adult

Populations. Center for Labor Market Studies (Northeastern University: November 2002).

2

 Pub. Law. No. 105-220. 

Page 1 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
and once enrolled, could usually remain in the program as long as needed. 

The program design included many of the strategies experts have 

suggested are effective in serving at-risk youth, including providing a safe

place for young people to go, assigning a key adult to monitor their 

progress, and offering a wide array of services. The program also provided 

a system for grantees to report performance information and included 

plans for an extensive evaluation study. The program began in 2000 and 

was funded for 5 years. 

In order to understand what can be learned from the Youth Opportunity 

Grant program, you asked us to examine the following: (1) How did 

grantees implement the Youth Opportunity Grant program? (2) What 

challenges did they face, and what can be learned from their experiences 

in addressing them? (3) What is known about the outcomes and impact of 

this program, both on the participants and on their communities? 

To answer these questions, we surveyed the 36 Youth Opportunity Grant 

program directors, visited 7 grantees, and analyzed program data provided

by the Department of Labor. All of the program directors completed the 

survey, which we conducted between March and May 2005.3

 We conducted

five in-depth site visits to grantees, during which we interviewed program 

administrators, staff, youth, and other members of the community. We also 

toured youth opportunity centers, in-school facilities, and observed 

program activities. We selected these five sites according to the 

proportionate representation of urban, rural, and Native American 

grantees as well as for their geographic distribution. We briefly visited two 

additional grantees while pretesting the survey, and at these sites, we 

toured grantees’ centers and spoke with program administrators, staff, and 

youth. In addition, we reviewed agency documents and interviewed 

agency officials and relevant experts. To address the third question 

regarding outcomes and impact, we also analyzed electronic data the 

Department of Labor collected from the grantees in a management 

information system developed specifically for the program. 

We conducted our work from September 2004 through November 2005 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

 3

 To view selected results from the survey, go to GAO-06-56SP. 

Page 2 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
Grantees carried out the Youth Opportunity Grant program—which was 

designed in part to enhance the local infrastructure of youth services—in a 

variety of ways. As outlined in the program design, grantees set up centers 

in the target areas that served as focal points for the program and housed a 

core staff of trained youth workers who provided case management and 

individualized services to participants. Because the target areas varied in 

size, some grantees had 1 center while other, more geographicallydispersed grantees had as many as 40. Grantees also offered participants a

range of youth services in the areas of education, occupational training, 

leadership development, and support services. Youth could participate in 

an array of activities in these areas, from college tours and subsidized 

employment to community service projects and health-related workshops. 

Grantees collaborated with other organizations to deliver some of these 

services, such as arranging for youth to attend GED preparation classes at

a local agency. In many cases, grantees also developed unique 

programming to fill gaps in available services. One grantee started a 

charter high school, the only one of its kind in that city. All of the grantees 

tracked the activities of participants and transmitted the information to a 

reporting system administered by the Department of Labor. In addition, 

many grantees used innovative methods to recruit participants, such as 

placing outreach staff in malls and providing work-related incentives for 

youth to participate. 

Results in Brief 

Grantees faced challenges related to program start-up, conditions in their 

communities, and meeting the service needs of the youth; however, certain 

features of the program design such as local discretion and individualized 

services, helped grantees address these challenges. Most of the grantees 

reported that it was difficult to set up a center within the 7 months the 

Department of Labor expected the programs to be operational and 

grantees said that this quick start-up had an adverse effect on retaining 

participants. As a consequence, grantees, experts, and agency officials said

that programs could have benefited from additional time to plan. In 

addition, although most grantees found it difficult to establish an 

information-reporting system, some of them ultimately found it useful for 

their own program management purposes. Most grantees reported that 

existing conditions in their communities were problems—such as 

violence, drugs, and lack of jobs—but grantees used the discretion 

afforded to them by the program to devise a range of approaches to 

address the problems. For example, a rural grantee responded to limited 

employment opportunities in its area by subsidizing positions with local 

businesses and providing the youth transportation to jobs in other locales. 

Additionally, grantees told us that the obstacles facing their clients—such 

as low academic achievement, health problems, and lack of family 

Page 3 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
support—made it difficult for the youth to move forward, but found 

aspects of the program’s design—such as case management and 

individualized services—useful in helping the youth deal with these 

barriers. For example, one grantee trained case managers to conduct 

mental health assessments of the youth and, when deemed appropriate, 

arranged for a professional counselor to provide therapy at the center. 

Grantees and others reported that the participants and their communities 

made progress toward the education and employment goals of the 

program; however, a formal assessment of the program’s impact is still 

under study. Data provided by the grantees show that the Youth 

Opportunity Grant program enrolled about 91,000 youth nationwide, a 

number of whom subsequently completed high school, entered college, or

found employment. In addition, grantees and others told us that the 

program benefited their communities. However, in the absence of a

systematic impact analysis, it is not known whether the events they cited

would have occurred without the program. The Department of Labor 

contracted for a $24 million evaluation of the program that included plans 

for an impact analysis. However, agency officials are unsure if the impact 

analysis will be completed as originally planned due to the Department’s 

allocations being less than expected.

In order to learn from this innovative program and continue to improve 

efforts to serve at-risk youth, we recommend the Secretary of Labor take 

the actions necessary to complete the impact analysis of the Youth 

Opportunity Grant program and release the impact data and all related

research reports from the program’s evaluation. In comments on GAO’s 

draft report, the Department of Labor agreed with our recommendation 

and indicated that it plans to complete the impact analysis and publish all

related reports. 

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 authorized Youth Opportunity 

Grants (YO), a $1 billion, 5-year program aimed at increasing the 

educational attainment and long-term employment of youth residing in 

high poverty areas. The program was designed to assist at-risk, hard-toserve youth and the communities in which they live by concentrating 

resources into a targeted geographic area. YO expanded on earlier 

demonstration programs that were based on a similar design, the most 

recent of which were known as Kulick grants. The Department of Labor

Background 

Page 4 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
(the Department) announced the 36 YO grantees4

—24 urban, 6 rural, and 6 

Native American—in February 2000 and set a goal for the grantees to have 

their programs operational by September of that year. Although the 

Department originally planned to continue to add grantees, funding for the 

program was eliminated in the budget for fiscal year 2004. Figure 1 shows 

the 36 grantees by location. 

 4

 For the purposes of this report, we refer to the entity that operated the program as a 

grantee. The 36 recipients of the grants were workforce investment boards, states, 

counties, cities, and other entities. Some recipients contracted out the operations of the 

program, while others directly offered services to youth.

Page 5 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
Figure 1: Location of Youth Opportunity Grantees 

Note: In Robeson County, N.C., and Imperial County, Calif., the program only operated in certain 

areas of the county. 

Page 6 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
The Department of Labor’s stated goals for the YO program were to 

increase educational attainment and promote long-term employment of 

youth in the target areas, as well as to improve the youth service delivery 

systems in these communities. Specifically, grantees were expected to 

effect increases in the rates of high school completion, college enrollment, 

and employment, both for youth participating in the program and, by 

extension, the overall target area. Grantees were also expected to facilitate 

the delivery of services by partnering with other institutions in the 

community, especially local schools and colleges, the juvenile justice 

system, and private employers. The program was designed to allow 

grantees to enhance the local infrastructure of youth services by filling in

critical service gaps, coordinating existing services, and, in the case of 

some rural and tribal areas, developing an infrastructure where services 

were limited. 

Many of the YO program components were based on practices that experts

have identified as effective for working with at-risk youth, and the design 

of the program supported flexibility and invention at the local level. Based 

on a youth development framework that emphasizes a comprehensive 

approach to meeting a young person’s needs, the program required YO 

grantees to offer a full range of education, employment, and leadership 

development services as well as provide other supports to the youth. 

Advocates and experts have also stressed that youth need a place to gather 

where they feel comfortable and a sense of belonging. In this vein, YO 

grantees were required to have at least one youth center in the target 

community that would provide a focal point for services and activities as 

well as a safe place for the youth to go. In addition, grantees were 

expected to maintain a core staff of trained youth workers and to provide 

follow up services to participants for at least 2 years after they completed

participation in program activities, which is in keeping with the identified

effective practice of providing youth access to a caring, trusted adult for 

an extended period of time. Additionally, experts have suggested youth 

benefit from the opportunity to continue a relationship with a program for 

as long as they need. Similarly, the program had flexible enrollment rules 

that allowed participants to remain enrolled even through periods of 

inactivity. However, the program design allowed grantees latitude in 

deciding many of the particulars of the program. For example, grantees 

could choose how and by whom services would be delivered, the number 

and location of the YO centers, and the institutions with which they 

partnered. Figure 2 displays the key components of Youth Opportunity 

Grant program. 

Page 7 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
Figure 2: Key Components of Youth Opportunity Grant Program

Page 8 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
Like some prior demonstration programs that the Department of Labor has 

administered, eligibility for YO was not based on income, but rather on 

geographic residence. Youth between the ages of 14 and 21 living in the 

target area were eligible for the program, regardless of income. In most 

cases, the target areas were federally designated empowerment zones or 

enterprise communities, which are, by definition, areas with high rates of

poverty. 

The Department of Labor provided extensive, ongoing technical assistance 

to grantees. The Department assigned grantees coaches with considerable 

experience working in youth programs who helped grantees with a range

of issues, such as developing services and building partnerships. The 

Department also collaborated with a private foundation to establish a 

training institute that provided courses in youth development to more than 

2,000 youth workers. In addition, the Department sponsored opportunities 

for grantees to share best practices and strategies in regular directors’ 

meetings and conference calls and through peer-to-peer training sessions. 

The Department laid the foundation for collecting performance data on 

the program by setting up a management information system (MIS). The 

Department collected performance data on the YO program in a 

centralized, electronic system. Grantees submitted information to fulfill 

requirements of the Workforce Investment Act, which mandated that 

grantees report on seven performance measures related to employment, 

retention, earnings, attainment of skills, and attainment of credentials. In 

addition to these, grantees reported on interim measures developed by the 

Department to gauge the progress of participants as they moved through 

the program. These measures were designed to document youth 

participation in activities and other intermediate milestones. 

The Department had funded several prior programs premised on a 

geographic and community concept similar to that of the YO, although on

a much smaller scale, but little information is available on the impact of 

these demonstration programs. Although evaluations were conducted of 

these earlier programs, the impact studies were either incomplete or not 

released. The first of these demonstrations, Youth Opportunities 

Unlimited, was evaluated and the results published, but the study did not 

include a systematic analysis of impact based on comparison groups. The 

funding for the second demonstration, Youth Fair Chance, was cut 2 years 

into the program, and although the evaluation study was published, it was 

based on only 2 of the planned 5 years of the program. As a result, the 

authors of this study advised that the findings should be interpreted 

cautiously. The most recent of the demonstration programs was known as 

Page 9 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
the Kulick grants. The Department has prepared an evaluation of the 

Kulick grants, but has not yet released the results publicly. 

For the Youth Opportunity Grants, the Department set up an extensive 

effort in 2000 to collect and analyze information to assess the program’s 

impact. The Department contracted for a $24 million evaluation study that 

included plans to estimate the impact of the program by comparing key 

characteristics in the YO communities and comparable areas that did not 

receive YO grants. It was to begin in 2000, and the final report was 

originally scheduled to be completed in July 2005. The study was designed 

to differentiate between those observed changes in participants and the 

communities that resulted from the program and those that would have 

occurred even without the program’s intervention. 

Grantees adapted key elements of the program’s design to their particular

circumstances and used a variety of approaches in providing services and

conducting outreach. Grantees set up centers that varied widely in terms 

of number and other characteristics where youth could receive services 

and participate in activities. The centers housed a core staff who provided 

case management and helped plan individualized services for youth. Staff 

numbers and duties differed between grantees. Most grantees used the 

management information system (MIS) provided by the Department of 

Labor to submit program data to the Department, but some used their own 

systems. Most grantees used a combination of approaches to provide 

youth services, including collaborating with other organizations and, when 

they deemed it necessary, developing services of their own. To reach hardto-serve target population, grantees used a variety of recruiting techniques, 

ranging from the conventional to the innovative.

The centers set up under the terms of the grant varied widely in number 

and character. Because the target communities varied in size, some 

grantees had 1 center while other, more geographically dispersed grantees

had as many as 40. The centers were intended to serve as the hub of the 

local programs, and the types of activities offered in them differed 

considerably. One center we visited in rural Louisiana had a variety of 

recreational facilities, such as a basketball court and recreation room, in 

addition to a classroom, computer lab, and staff offices. Youth 

participating in this program told us nothing like these facilities had 

existed for them before the YO program. On the other hand, a center we 

visited in Houston resembled a traditional career center, with computer 

kiosks set up near staff offices where the youth could undertake job 

Grantees Carried Out 

the Program Using a 

Variety of Approaches

Grantees Adapted 

Program’s Design to Their 

Particular Circumstances 

Page 10 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
searches and skills assessments. Houston officials said they had formerly 

offered some recreational activities on site, but found them to be 

duplicative of other services available in the neighborhood. Some grantees 

provided still other facilities at their centers. For example, Baltimore had 

an on-site health clinic and music recording studio. Some grantees also 

had centers located within schools. The District of Columbia had staff 

sited in a local high school, where they offered training and support for 

youth. This in-school center was located in a large classroom, with a staff 

office off to one side and furnished with a computer lab with equipment 

purchased by the grantee. Figure 3 depicts photos of two youth 

opportunity grant centers we visited. 

Page 11 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
Figure 3: Photos of YO Centers 

The centers housed staff who varied substantially in number and makeup. 

Houston divided staff duties between as many as 115 people working in 4 

centers. In this program, “personal service representatives” provided case

management and identified youths’ goals and training needs, and 

“employment counselors” assisted youth with job searches and conducted

Page 12 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
follow-up services to youth who had been placed in employment. Other 

grantees, however, had sites with only one person performing all of the 

major staff duties. At the California Indian Manpower Consortium (CIMC) 

Manchester Point Arena site, one youth worker handled recruitment, case 

management, and job placement. Because of the remoteness of the site, 

this youth worker also frequently drove a van, weekly transporting youth 

to services as far as 4 hours away. 

Most grantees used the management information system (MIS) provided

by the Department of Labor to record program data, but some used their 

own systems and then submitted the data to the Department. Those who 

did not use the Department MIS used a variety of systems. For example, 

Milwaukee developed its own system with the aim of using it in 

conjunction with other youth programs offered by its local Workforce 

Investment Board.5

 Similarly, Hartford developed customized software 

that enabled it to share information with other provider agencies and the

schools in the community. 

Grantees Used 

Collaboration and 

Invention to Varying 

Degrees in Delivering 

Services 

Grantees used a combination of approaches to establish a network of 

educational, occupational, and other services for youth, but varied the 

extent to which they relied on other providers. Grantees availed 

themselves of existing services, either through formal arrangements or by 

referring participants to other organizations in the community. Kansas City 

arranged for youth to attend classes at other local agencies to help prepare 

for the GED exam. Similarly, Baltimore referred young women who 

needed interview clothing to a local charity organization. Most grantees 

also collaborated with other institutions to provide some services. San

Antonio partnered with a local community college to establish academies 

in which youth could spend half a day on their home campuses and half a 

day at the community college, allowing them to earn a certificate or 

associate degree in areas such as aviation or biotechnology. Houston 

purchased credit retrieval software for local high schools that students 

could use to complete their academic requirements for graduation. In 

addition, grantees originated programs to fill perceived gaps in services. 

Memphis established its own charter school with an emphasis on the arts 

in order to provide alternative education opportunities for the youth, one 

of the emphasized youth activities in the program. To provide leadership 

 5

 As stated in the Workforce Investment Act, a local Workforce Investment Board is an 

entity designated to set policy for the statewide workforce system within the local area. 

Page 13 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
development opportunities, one of the CIMC sites sponsored a cemetery 

care project. In this project, participants worked with the tribal elders to 

make a map of the local cemetery with the names of the deceased because 

cemeteries on this reservation did not have headstones. Table 1 shows 

youth activities and examples of how grantees implemented the activities. 

Table 1: YO Program Areas, Corresponding Youth Activities, and Examples of Implementation 

YO program area Youth activities Example of implementation

Improving 

educational 

achievement 

Tutoring, study skills 

training, and instruction, 

including dropout 

prevention strategies 

Birmingham created an intensive 9-week dropout prevention program called 

Operation Yes that targeted 8th, 9th, and 10th graders functioning one or more grade 

levels below their current grade. It combined academic remediation with job 

readiness training, life skills sessions, and a paid work experience. 

 Alternative secondary 

school services 

Cleveland partnered with their local school district to offer on-site the Twilight School 

program, a diploma-track high school for dropouts. The program offered masterybased credit classes at a time and in a setting conducive to these youth. 

Preparation for and 

success in 

employment 

Summer employment 

opportunities directly 

linked to academic and 

occupational learning 

Louisville partnered with the local bar association to provide summer internships for 

interested YO participants. 

 Paid and unpaid work 

experiences, including 

internships and job 

shadowing 

Boston developed the Transitional Employment Services program, a four-tiered 

approach to employment training and job placement. Youth could progress from the 

lowest tier, which focused on basic employability skills and gaining experience 

through community service projects, to the highest level, which focused on helping 

youth find unsubsidized employment. 

 Occupational skills 

training 

Moloka’i partnered with a local fishpond to give youth hands-on experience in areas 

such as basic computing, seaweed farming, aquaculture, carpentry, and plumbing. 

Services to develop 

the potential of

youth as citizens 

and leaders 

Leadership development 

opportunities 

Brockton trained youth to be mediators and youth coordinators to resolve conflicts at 

the YO center and in their community. The program was funded through a grant from 

the Attorney General’s office.

Supports for youth Supportive services Cook Inlet Tribal Council created the Summer Bridging Institute, a program that 

brought youth from small villages who had been accepted to the University of Alaska, 

Anchorage to campus before the start of the fall semester. The program offered youth 

the chance to acclimate to urban campus life and to bond with other students, with 

the goal of increasing the likelihood they would stay in college. 

 Follow up services for at 

least 24 months

Houston switched from following up quarterly to following up monthly with youth who 

had been placed in employment. Staff found it was easier to keep track of the youth if 

they contacted them more frequently. 

Adult mentoring Southeast Arkansas assigned adult mentors to youth according to similar interests or 

career goals. Adults spent at least 2 hours per week with the youth and reported their 

activities to the program through written documentation. 

 Comprehensive guidance 

and counseling

Baltimore arranged for a community organization to hold weekly support groups for 

young fathers. A service specialist presented a parenting education curriculum, with 

group sessions intended to improve the involvement of fathers in the lives of their 

children. 

Source: Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and GAO analysis of documents from Department and grantees. 

Page 14 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
Grantees also used an array of strategies to help youth find long-term 

educational or occupational opportunities and to follow up with 

participants after they exited the program. Some grantees had staff 

specifically devoted to finding appropriate employment opportunities and 

connecting youth with these opportunities. For example, Milwaukee 

created the position of job developer, who identified potential employers 

and spoke to them directly about the youth in the program. Grantees also 

used a number of methods for helping youth enroll in post-secondary 

institutions, such as conducting college tours, assisting with financial aid

forms, and placing support staff on college campuses. The statutory 

provision authorizing the YO program required grantees to provide followup services for 2 years after the youth completed participation in program 

activities. Grantees recorded on a quarterly basis the employment and 

education status of the youth who had completed participation in the 

program, for example, if they were in school or working at the time of 

contact. Some grantees contacted youth more frequently. Staff in 

Baltimore told us they varied the frequency depending on the degree to 

which they regarded the young person to be at some risk. One might be 

contacted monthly, while another would be checked on nearly every day.

Grantees Actively 

Recruited Youth, Including 

the Hard to Serve, and 

Used Incentives to Draw 

and Maintain Involvement 

Grantees recruited youth, including traditionally difficult to serve 

populations, by creating connections with other youth-serving agencies. 

Milwaukee operated a juvenile justice project to help youth coming out of 

the corrections system to reintegrate into the community. Personnel at a 

local correctional facility worked with program staff to identify those due 

for release who were expecting to live within the geographic target area of 

the program. Program staff traveled to the facility to conduct an 

orientation session and then worked with the youth, corrections officials, 

and parents to develop a reintegration plan. The services offered to them 

were similar to those offered to all of the YO participants. 

Grantees also used a variety of innovative methods to recruit participants. 

Since many of the youth were disconnected from both school and work, as 

one grantee told us, they could be not only hard to serve, but hard to find.

Some grantees went beyond conventional outreach activities of mailers 

and radio advertisements and conducted community walking campaigns 

using staff to saturate shopping malls and other areas where youth 

congregate. Others used youth to lead recruitment. In some cases, a 

grantee used employment as an inducement to link youth to other 

activities the program offered. For example, Louisiana’s work program 

allowed participants to work more hours in subsidized employment the 

further they advanced toward their educational goals. We were told many

of the youth lived in unstable economic conditions, and these needs had to 

Page 15 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
be addressed before the youth would focus on other areas, such as 

education. In other cases, grantees used cash or non-monetary rewards to 

encourage participation. In Houston, youth could attend special events, 

such as a basketball game, if they participated in the program a minimum 

number of hours. 

Grantees were able to address a variety of challenges in setting up the 

program and delivering services to youth using local discretion, flexible 

enrollment rules, and other aspects of the program’s design, but they and

others said a longer start-up period would have been beneficial. Most 

grantees found it difficult to establish centers and retain participants in 

their programs. They felt that these challenges were compounded by 

expectations for a quick start-up, and subsequently they and Department 

officials felt more planning time would have been beneficial. Grantees also 

had difficulty establishing an information-reporting system, but once in 

place, found it was helpful for program management purposes. Conditions 

in the communities such as violence and lack of jobs presented a 

challenge to most grantees, but they took advantage of the local discretion

built into the program to develop strategies to address them. Grantees also 

cited as an obstacle the vast service needs of many of the youth the 

program was intended to serve, but case management, individualized 

services, and flexible enrollment rules were useful in dealing with them. 

The majority of grantees reported that finding or renovating centers was a 

challenge. Many grantees did not have suitable sites in their communities 

for use as centers, and some put considerable effort into renovating 

existing structures. In the extreme, the grantee in Alaska renovated 40 

centers in remote communities not accessible by road and shipped 

equipment and material by air. In a few cases, grantees did not have a 

permanent building until after the first year of the program. In Boston, the 

program was housed in temporary facilities for a period of time because a 

permanent center could not be completed for the program’s opening. 

Grantees Used 

Program Design to 

Address Major 

Challenges, but Found 

Start-up Time to be 

Short 

Grantees Felt Challenged 

to Set Up Program in Time 

Allotted, and More 

Planning Time Would Have 

Been Beneficial 

Another challenge identified by most grantees was retaining participants, 

which grantees linked in part to expectations from the Department to start 

to enroll youth quickly. The Department set a goal to recruit 3,000 

participants nationwide within the first few months of the program, or a 

little less than 100 youth per grantee. Some grantees said they felt rushed 

to meet recruitment goals and told us they recruited many youth who were 

not committed to the program. In addition, several directors mentioned 

that they felt they were asked to serve participants before their 

Page 16 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
programming was fully developed, a situation that as one expert 

commented, was akin to asking grantees to “fly the plane before they were

finished building it.” We were told that, in these situations, some youth 

became disenchanted with the program and left because of the limited 

offerings the center presented early on. 

Grantees, agency officials, and experts said a longer planning period 

would have been beneficial. Grantees had an 7 month window between 

the announcement of the grant recipients and the Department’s target date

for having the programs operational. For example, two grantees with 

whom we spoke said about three additional months would have been 

necessary for them to meet the goals set out by the Department. Agency

officials also told us that grantees were pushed to start-up too quickly and 

could have benefited from more time to plan. Agency officials said it 

would have been appropriate to give grantees more time to meet the 

Department’s initial goals. 

Grantees Had Difficulties 

Establishing an 

Information Reporting 

System, but Found It 

Useful Once in Place 

Most grantees reported that establishing an information reporting system 

was challenging, and grantees told us it would have been useful for the 

Department to have had a workable system in place at the outset of the 

program. The management information system (MIS) initially provided by

the Department was fraught with problems. Department officials told us it 

took about 18 months to iron out the kinks. In addition, the Office of 

Inspector General identified inconsistencies in the way grantees were 

recording data early on.

6

 Although the Department eventually developed 

an improved system, grantees said it would have been better had the MIS 

been in place from the beginning. Not having a system in place created

additional burden for the grantees. For example, Louisiana developed its 

own system to collect information until an updated system was available 

and then manually transferred 11 months of data into the new MIS. 

Once in place, grantees additionally used the information system for their 

own program management purposes such as to improve performance and 

reinforce accountability. The Hartford grantee was able to integrate its 

system with the school district, allowing case managers to track 

attendance and grades to allow better monitoring of participant 

achievements. The Hartford system also enabled program management to

 6

 Office of Inspector General, Department of Labor, Workforce Investment Act, Youth

Opportunity Program Audit, OIG Audit Report Number 06-03-001-03-390 (March 2003). 

Page 17 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
see which case managers were most successful at engaging youth in the 

activities required for the completion of their goals. Regarding

accountability, Portland used its information system to monitor the 

performance of its contractors on a weekly basis. 

Grantees Used Their 

Discretion to Address 

Community-Based 

Challenges 

Some of the major challenges also identified by grantees were problems 

external to the program, yet affected their ability to deliver services. 

Twenty-eight of the grantees reported on the survey that a lack of jobs in

the community was a challenge. In some areas, jobs were on the decline 

because of shifts in the local economy or relocation of major employers. 

For example, the grantee in San Francisco related that due to the dot-com

bust, youth in the program were competing with a skilled workforce 

willing to fill entry level positions that would otherwise be available to 

youth. In other areas, especially rural ones, there were few employers, let 

alone large ones. In addition, 29 of 36 grantees reported on the survey that 

risk factors such as violence, drugs, and gangs were challenges in 

implementing the program. In some cases, these factors made it difficult 

for participants to receive services. In one urban community, we were told 

there were safety concerns with youth participating in evening activities 

sponsored by the YO because they would have to return home after dark.

Local discretion built into the program design helped grantees respond to 

external challenges. Within the structure of the program, grantees were 

allowed some amount of latitude to develop responses to circumstances in 

their communities, such as a scarcity of jobs. For example, the California 

Indian Manpower Consortium created opportunities for youth to have 

work experiences, such as subsidizing summer jobs with local business 

including a campground and senior center or working with the tribe to 

place youth in clerical positions. Similarly, grantees were able to develop 

services to address specific risk factors in their communities. Imperial 

County offered a curriculum series to help address interpersonal violence 

among adolescents, an issue they had identified as particularly 

problematic in their area. The series was designed to reduce impulsive and 

aggressive behavior through empathy training, interpersonal problem 

solving, behavior skill training, and anger management. In Milwaukee, the 

grantee addressed safety concerns by renting vans to transport the youth 

to nighttime events. 

Page 18 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
Grantees identified as a major challenge the obstacles faced by their 

clients, such as homelessness, lack of family support, mental health 

problems, and low levels of academic attainment. Staff in Baltimore told 

us homelessness was a frequent issue faced by youth in their area and 

finding a place to sleep can preoccupy the youth and disrupt the learning 

process. YO staff and others said that participants may lack support in 

other areas of their lives, such as from their families. For example, one 

grantee told us of a participant who was awarded a full scholarship to 

college, but the parents would not sign the paperwork to receive the 

money. Some youth also faced mental health issues, which prevented them

from moving forward in their lives. All of these factors, we were told, 

could mean a slow start for youth who enrolled in the program. The 

director of an alternative high school in Milwaukee told us that because of

the disorder in their lives, many of these youth may take a year just to 

become comfortable in the program before they can even begin making 

any forward progress. 

Service Needs of 

Participants Presented 

Challenges, but Tailored 

Services, Individualized 

Planning, and Flexible 

Enrollment Rules Were 

Useful in Addressing Them 

Grantees found aspects of the program design such as case management, 

individualized services, and flexible enrollment rules useful in addressing 

the service challenges of participants. For example, grantees used 

assessments to help determine the academic needs of clients and provide 

each client with the appropriate individualized services. Philadelphia 

designed a program in which each participant had a personalized 

remediation plan based on the results of an evaluation test and interview 

with an education coach. This plan was intended to build on clients’ 

strengths and accounted for their particular learning styles. After the 

initial assessment, participants were reevaluated at regular intervals to 

monitor their academic progress and goal attainment. The curriculum was 

designed so that youth could increase at least one grade level after 90 

hours of instruction. In addition, both youth and community members told 

us that YO staff were key in helping youth stay motivated and guiding 

them through difficult situations. Grantees also found the enrollment rules 

useful in working toward program goals. The program’s enrollment policy 

allowed most participants to continue to receive services even if they 

experienced periods of inactivity. Staff in Houston told us that the policy 

was a benefit to the youth because, unlike other employment programs, 

YO did not end their relationship with youth who had not been 

participating for a while. 

Page 19 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
Grantees and others reported that the participants and their communities 

made advancements in education and employment; however, a formal 

assessment of the program’s impact is still under study. Data reported by 

the grantees showed that a number of youth advanced their education 

while they were participating in the program, such as completing high 

school. Grantees also reported data showing a portion of the participants 

entered unsubsidized employment after enrolling in the program. 

Similarly, grantees and others believe their communities made 

advancements toward the Department’s stated education and employment 

goals of the program. In addition, the majority of grantees reported that 

they made improvements in the youth service delivery systems in their 

communities. The Department funded an evaluation to assess the impact 

of the program, which was designed to shed light on the extent to which 

observed changes can be attributed to the program. However, the study 

has not yet been completed. 

Data reported by the grantees showed that a number of youth advanced 

their education while they were participating in the program. Two of the 

Department’s primary goals of program were to increase the rates of high 

school completion and college enrollment for the youth. Data that 

grantees entered into the management information system (MIS) showed 

that of the approximately 91,000 youth who signed up for in the program 

nationwide, about 18,700 either completed high school or attained a GED 

after enrolling in the program. In addition, about 11,700 youth entered 

college, 37 percent of whom were reported to be out of school when they 

initially enrolled in the program. Youth with whom we spoke credited the 

program with giving them a second chance to increase their education and 

to better their employment opportunities. One Louisiana youth’s 

comments typified what we heard elsewhere from participants during our 

site visits, “YO is the best thing that has happened to me. YO has given me 

a job and put a little money in my pocket.” He added, “YO has also been 

instrumental in keeping me out of jail. Above all, YO has helped me realize 

that education is important.” Figure 4 summarizes enrollment, 

participation, education, and employment data for youth in the program, 

as of June 2005. 

Grantees and Others 

Reported That 

Participants and Their 

Communities Made 

Progress, but the 

Program’s Impact Is 

Still under Study 

Grantees Reported Data 

Showing Some 

Participants Advanced 

Their Education and 

Found Employment 

Page 20 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
Figure 4: Number of Youth Who Signed up for, Participated in, and Achieved at Least One Educational or Employment Goal of

the Program 

Number of youth who signed up for 

program

91,226 total

44,233 out-of-school youth (OSY)

46,993 in-school youth (ISY)

Number of youth who completed 

at least one program activity

80,563 total

38,669 OSY

41,894 ISY

Number of youth who achieved at least one educational or 

long-term placement goal of program

34,564 total

18,064 OSY

16,500 ISY

Completed 

high school 

15,516 total

2,871 OSY

12,645 ISY

Attained GED

3,176 total

2,563 OSY

613 ISY 

Entered college

11,696 total

4,331 OSY

7,365 ISY

Entered occupational

skills training

5,888 total

3,792 OSY

2,096 ISY 

Placed in 

unsubsidized job 

17,296 total

10,682 OSY

6,614 ISY

Educational status after Long-term placements

enrollment in program

Source: GAO analysis of YO MIS data through June 2005.

Note: The five educational status and long-term placement categories are not mutually exclusive. 

Grantees reported data showing that a portion of the youth entered 

unsubsidized employment after completing YO activities. Data from the 

MIS show that about 17,300 youth were placed in employment that was 

not subsidized by the program, 62 percent of whom were out of school 

when they initially enrolled in the program. Grantees and others told us 

Page 21 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
the job readiness training that some youth received as part of the program 

was particularly important in helping them get jobs. Employers we spoke 

with told us they knew the youth that were sent to them by YO would be 

well trained and ready to work. A local human resources manager for a 

national chain of home improvement stores told us that he thought YO 

participants were better prepared for employment than other residents of 

the area, adding that they show up with better job skills and “soft” skills.

Grantees and Others

Believe Their Communities 

Moved toward Program 

Goals 

Grantees and others expressed the view that their communities had made 

advancements in concert with the Department’s education and 

employment goals for the program. Almost all of the grantees reported 

that high school completion, college enrollment, and youth employment 

rates improved in their communities as a result of the program. Several 

grantees also asserted that affecting the youth led to changes in the 

community. In addition, community members with whom we spoke said 

the program helped their communities make progress toward greater 

education and employment. For example, a tribal leader in California told

us that YO motivated the youth in his tribe to stay in school. Similarly, one 

expert pointed to some of the rural grantees who had many youth enroll in 

college, which she said was especially important because of a lack of jobs

in these areas. 

The majority of grantees reported making improvements in the youth 

service delivery systems in their communities. Some of the described 

changes were to the service infrastructure in these communities. For 

example, San Diego pointed out that it had created a multiservice youth 

center in a neighborhood where none had existed before. Grantees cited 

other improvements related to the mode of service delivery. Tucson 

reported that prior to YO, it had funded three stand-alone youth programs, 

but now it has a one-stop system with multiple entry points for delivering 

youth services. Other grantees noted that their efforts to foster better 

communication and collaboration among service providers had benefited 

the youth. As the Portland grantee commented, by partnering with their 

local employment department and community college system, they were 

able to leverage staff to provide intensive job search and college 

preparation services to youth. In other cases, local leaders credited the YO 

as a catalyst for change in their community. For example, a school 

superintendent in California told us that YO staff had helped to forge an 

agreement between the school district and five Indian tribes in the area to

develop an education curriculum that would be more sensitive to the 

tribes’ cultures. 

Page 22 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
While the Department of Labor funded an evaluation designed to assess 

the impact of the program, it has not yet been completed. This was 

planned as a 5-year, $24 million evaluation, which began in 2000. As part of 

the evaluation, the Department conducted baseline and follow-up surveys 

of the target areas, and gathered extensive descriptions of the 36 programs 

and communities. The evaluation also included plans for an impact study 

that was designed to compare YO participants and communities with 

other, similar youth and communities that did not participate in YO. This 

type of comparative analysis would be necessary to determine if the 

events reported by grantees and others would have occurred in the 

absence of the program. However, the evaluation is not finished. 

Moreover, agency officials are unsure if the impact study that was to be 

part of the evaluation will be completed. Due to departmental allocations 

being lower than expected, the Department spent $1.9 million less than the 

full amount of the original contract on the evaluation. Agency officials told

us that the impact study was likely to be scaled back because of the lower 

allocation. The evaluation was originally scheduled to be completed in 

July 2005. However, agency officials told us they do not expect the study 

to be finished until June 2006. 

The Youth Opportunity Grant program was designed to help at-risk youth 

and their communities by concentrating resources geographically and by 

incorporating components that experts have suggested are effective in 

assisting this population. To continue to improve the ability to serve these 

youth, researchers and practitioners must be able to learn from the most 

promising and innovative approaches in serving these youth, including 

those used in the Youth Opportunity Grant program. The Department of 

Labor has begun an evaluation of the program that includes many pieces

of a potentially useful study. Although informative, these pieces will not by 

themselves answer the question of impact, in other words, whether the 

described events would have occurred in the absence of the program. In 

order to understand what effect, if any, the program had on these 

observed events, it is necessary to have a systematic comparison with 

other, similar communities that did not receive grants. The Department 

planned, but has not yet completed, such an analysis as part of the 

evaluation. The Department has an opportunity to contribute to the 

research on programs for serving at-risk youth, if the evaluation study is 

completed and the results made public. However, the Department has not 

taken full advantage of past opportunities to release information on other

programs based on a similar model, such as the Kulick grants. Given the $1

billion investment in this program—including almost $24 million for an 

evaluation effort—and the need for rigorous data on these types of 

Department of Labor’s 

Study of Program Impact 

Has Not Been Completed 

Conclusions 

Page 23 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
programs, the study should be completed and the results should be made 

available. Unless the Department completes the evaluation of the Youth 

Opportunity Grant program and releases the results, researchers and 

practitioners will not be able to fully realize the potential to learn from the 

program. 

To continue to improve efforts to serve at-risk youth and in order that 

researchers can evaluate the quality of information and determine possible 

impact of the program, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor take 

the actions necessary to complete the impact analysis of the Youth 

Opportunity Grant program and release the data and all related research 

reports from the program’s evaluation. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor for its 

review and comment. In its response, the Department agreed with our 

conclusions and recommendation and indicated that it intends to complete 

the impact analysis and publish all related reports from the Youth 

Opportunity Grant program evaluation. A copy of the Department’s 

response is in appendix II. The Department also provided us with 

technical comments, which we incorporated into the report where 

appropriate. 

We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, relevant 

congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will also make 

copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

Page 24 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
Please contact me at (415) 904-2272 if you or your staff have any questions 

about this report. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

David D. Bellis 

Director, Education, Workforce, and

 Income Security Issues 

Page 25 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
Appendix I: 

Methodology 

Objectives, Scope, and 

Page 26 GAO-06-53 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To accomplish our research objectives, we surveyed Youth Opportunity 

Grant Program directors on the implementation of the Youth Opportunity 

Grants. To augment information from our survey, we conducted five site 

visits of programs. We chose sites for our visits to represent 

proportionately the three grantee types (urban, rural, and Native 

American) as well as their geographic distribution. The grantees we visited 

were the District of Columbia, Houston, Milwaukee, rural Louisiana, and 

the California Indian Manpower Consortium. During our visits we met 

with program administrators, staff, and participants to learn their 

perspectives on program implementation, challenges, outcomes, impact, 

and lessons learned. Also, we interviewed local workforce board 

members, school officials, community based service providers, private 

employers, and local government officials to discuss their perspectives on

the impact and other aspects of the program. In addition, we toured Youth

Opportunity Centers, in-school facilities, and observed program activities.

We briefly visited an additional two grantees— Baltimore and 

Philadelphia—in the course of pretesting the survey, and while at their 

sites, toured centers and spoke with program administrators, staff, and 

participants. We gathered additional information by reviewing agency 

documents including site assessments and grant applications. We also 

interviewed agency officials and other relevant experts, including 

researchers, representatives of advocacy organizations, YO coaches, and 

former Department of Labor officials. We performed our work from 

September 2004 to November 2005 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

We also investigated several possible sources of external data to 

quantitatively measure outcomes and impact, but determined none of 

them were feasible for our purposes. The data sets we reviewed were: 

Current Population Survey, Common Core of Data, National Longitudinal 

Survey of Youth, High School and Beyond, and American Community 

Survey. 

Survey of Youth 

Opportunity Grant 

Program Directors

To learn about the implementation of the Youth Opportunity Grants, we 

conducted a Web-based survey of all Youth Opportunity Grant Program 

Directors. We asked directors about the usefulness of program 

components, challenges they faced implementing the program and 

strategies used to deal with them, and their opinion on the program’s 

impact on participants and communities. Additionally, we asked directors 

about the size and structure of their programs, the manner in which they 

delivered services, and the types of organizations with which their 

programs partnered. The survey also included a series of questions about 

 Youth Opportunity Grants
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

how programs maintained information to help us determine the reliability 

of data in the Department of Labor’s management information system. We 

pretested the survey with several program directors and modified the 

survey to take their comments into account. All 36 program directors 

completed the survey, for a response rate of 100 percent. We administered 

the survey between March 17 and May 31, 2005. To view selected results of 

the survey, go to GAO-06-56SP. 

Department of Labor 

Management Information 

System (MIS) 

We used electronic data collected on the program by the Department of 

Labor in a management information system (MIS) to describe the number 

of youth in the program who achieved the Department’s goals for the 

program, such as high school completion, college enrollment, and longterm education and employment placements. We have determined the MIS

data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this study through 

discussions with officials at the Department of Labor, in-depth interviews 

with MIS staff during site visits, and responses to a comprehensive array 

of survey items in which each grantee described their procedures for 

editing and auditing the data they entered into the MIS. We analyzed the 

MIS data using guidance provided to us by the Department. 

Page 27 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
Appendix II: Comments from the Department Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor 

of Labor 

Page 28 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 29 GAO-06-53 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact David Bellis, Director, (415) 904-2272, bellisd@gao.gov 

David Lehrer, Assistant Director, and Anne Welch, Analyst-in-Charge, 

managed this assignment and made significant contributions to all aspects 

of the work. Dan Concepcion and Eleanor Johnson also made significant 

contributions to this report. In addition, Kevin Jackson assisted in all 

aspects of the survey of Program Directors and in reviewing external data

sources. Jerry Sandau and Cathy Hurley assisted in the analysis of the MIS 

data and assessment of the MIS data reliability. Jessica Botsford provided 

legal support, and Susan Bernstein provided writing assistance. 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

 Youth Opportunity Grants
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve 

Quality of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. 

GAO-04-308. Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004.

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to 

Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and 

Information Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: 

June 18, 2003 

Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service 

Strategies, but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program

Development. GAO-02-413. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002. 

(130405) Page 30 GAO-06-53 Youth Opportunity Grants
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