United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

March 1996 JOB CORPS

Comparison of Federal

Program With State

Youth Training

Initiatives

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/HEHS-96-92

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-271070 

March 28, 1996

The Honorable William F. Goodling

Chairman, Committee on Economic

 and Educational Opportunities

House of Representatives

The Honorable Christopher Shays

Chairman, Human Resources and

 Intergovernmental Relations

 Subcommittee

Committee on Government Reform

 and Oversight

House of Representatives

The nation’s workforce development system consists of about 163

programs or funding streams that are funded at about $20 billion and

administered by 15 federal departments and independent agencies.1

 With

the current focus on achieving a balanced budget, the Congress is looking

for ways to increase federal program efficiency while reducing costs. Bills

currently in conference propose consolidating many employment and

training programs into block grants to the states and reducing their

funding by 15 to 20 percent. These proposals retain Job Corps—a

comprehensive, residential employment and training program for severely

disadvantaged youth—as a national program. However, provisions in the

Senate bill seek to better integrate Job Corps with state and local

workforce development initiatives. As the Congress continues to

deliberate the future structure of the federally funded workforce

development system and Job Corps’ place in this system, you requested

that we study several aspects of the Job Corps program.

This letter responds to your interest in whether states have established

training programs for youth that are similar to Job Corps. More

specifically, we compared youth training programs established by the

states with Job Corps using the four program features that, taken together,

characterize the Job Corps program. These features are (1) serving a

severely disadvantaged population, (2) providing basic education

instruction, (3) focusing on vocational training services, and (4) providing

these services in a residential setting. While the overall goal of the Job

Corps program is placement in a job or additional education and training,

1

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to Reduce Costs, Streamline the

Bureaucracy, and Improve Results (GAO/T-HEHS-95-53, Jan. 10, 1995).

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
B-271070 

as agreed with your staffs, we focused our work on identifying state

programs that had these four features, not on program outcomes. We used

these four features for comparison purposes only. We did not intend to

imply that all programs should contain these features, that the existence of

such features would necessarily ensure program effectiveness, or that

programs should be modeled after Job Corps.2

To identify state and locally established youth training programs similar to

Job Corps, we systematically surveyed state officials familiar with human

resource programs in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia as

well as national organizations associated with youth employment and

training programs.3

 We asked them about any programs within their state

that were similar to Job Corps—that is, that contained Job Corps’ four

descriptive characteristics. We also reviewed applicable reports and

publications related to youth programs that we identified through an

extensive literature search. In addition, we sought information on the

possible existence of other similar programs through the Internet

computer information system.

From the state and local youth training programs we identified, we noted

two that most closely resembled the Job Corps program. We visited both

programs and obtained detailed information on their organizational

structures and program operations.

We did our work from October 1995 through January 1996 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief Considering the four characteristics that together describe the Job Corps

program, we found that most state and local programs for youth differ

from Job Corps. Most states had programs serving disadvantaged youth

that provided basic education, and some state programs also offered

vocational training. However, vocational training was limited to

preemployment preparation or introduction to the working world and did

not include training in a specific occupation. In addition, residential

programs operated by the states generally targeted a specific segment of

2

See Job Corps: High Costs and Mixed Results Raise Questions About Program’s Effectiveness

(GAO/HEHS-95-180, June 30, 1995) for an assessment of the program’s effectiveness.

3

We looked for youth training programs that were established by the states or local entities, regardless

of the source of operating funds. These programs may receive funds from one or more sources,

including federal, state, and local governments, as well as private contributions. We excluded those

programs that, although administered and operated by state or local governments, were federally

established, such as titles IIB and IIC youth training programs under the Job Training Partnership Act.

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
B-271070 

the disadvantaged youth population, such as youths who have been

involved in the court system, whereas Job Corps targets youths with

multiple barriers to employment, such as school dropouts, recipients of

public assistance, and youths with limited English proficiency.

From among state and local youth programs, we found that youth corps

programs (programs that give young people work experience and training

through community service and conservation projects) had characteristics

most similar to Job Corps. Both Job Corps and youth corps programs

operate in many states, typically serving disadvantaged youth and

providing instruction to enhance basic education skills. On the other hand,

few youth corps programs are residential or focus on vocational training in

specific occupations.

Two youth corps programs—California Conservation Corps (at statewide

locations in California) and Seaborne Conservation Corps in Galveston,

Texas—contained all four features of Job Corps, but they differed from

Job Corps in the way they operated their programs. For example, unlike

Job Corps, which targets severely disadvantaged youth, the California

Conservation Corps does not specifically focus on the disadvantaged;

however, the majority of its participants are high school dropouts. The

program is, in part, residential and provides basic education but only

limited vocational training. This training consists primarily of work

experience on environmental and public conservation projects, and

training-related employment is not the primary focus of the program. The

Seaborne Conservation Corps is a residential program targeted to high

school dropouts. The 7-month training program provides basic education,

life skills instruction, and vocational training in a military-style

environment. However, vocational training is geared only toward the

maritime industry.

Background Job Corps was established in 1964 as an employment and training program

aimed at providing severely disadvantaged youth with a comprehensive

array of services, primarily in a residential setting. Administered by the

Department of Labor, Job Corps services are provided at 110 centers

located throughout the United States. All but four of the states have at

least one center operating within their boundaries.4

 The program receives

annual funding of approximately $1 billion to serve about 100,000 youths.

4

Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Wyoming do not have Job Corps centers.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
B-271070 

The program enrolls youths aged 16 to 24 who are severely disadvantaged,

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

environment. Our previous report contained an analysis of characteristics

of those terminating from Job Corps in program year5

 1993, which showed

that over two-thirds of the program’s participants had multiple barriers to

employment.6,7 Enrollment is voluntary, and training programs are open

entry and self-paced, allowing participants to enroll throughout the year

and to progress at their own pace. On average, participants spend about 8

months in the program but can stay up to 2 years.

Each of the centers provides participants with a range of services

including basic education, vocational skills training, social skills

instruction, counseling, health care (including dental), room and board,

and recreational activities. Skills training is offered in a variety of

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.

One feature that makes Job Corps different from other youth training

programs is its residential component. About 90 percent of the

approximately 63,000 youths enrolled each year live at the centers,

allowing services to be provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The

premise for boarding participants is that most come from a disruptive

environment and therefore can benefit from receiving education and

training in a different setting where a variety of support services is

available around the clock. Job Corps typically employs residential staff to

oversee dormitory living and security staff for the safety and well-being of

its participants. Furthermore, Job Corps participants must have

permission to leave the Job Corps center grounds, and participants “earn”

home leave, which must be approved before being taken and can be

denied for a number of reasons such as failure to follow a center’s rules of

conduct.

The Job Corps program recently implemented a “Zero Tolerance” policy

for violence and drugs in order to ensure a safe and drug-free

5

A program year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the following year. Program years are

designated by the year in which they start; thus, program year 1993 began July 1, 1993, and ended

June 30, 1994.

6

GAO/HEHS-95-180, June 30, 1995.

7

The barriers included dropping out of school, being deficient in basic skills (reading or math skills

below the eighth-grade level), receiving public assistance, and having limited English proficiency.

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
B-271070 

environment. This policy includes a “one-strike-and-you’re-out” provision

for the most serious violent or criminal offenses as well as for drug

violations.

Job Corps enrollees receive periodic allowance and incentive payments.

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

per month, which increases to about $80 per month after 6 months. In

addition, participants 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. Participants 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. Participants

receive an additional $100 if the job is related to the vocational training

they received while in Job Corps. Participants 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.

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.

However, the primary outcome for Job Corps participants is employment;

about 60 percent of those leaving the program get jobs. Recently, the

Department of Labor placed emphasis on participants receiving a job

related to the occupational training they received by including

training-related employment among its program performance measures.

Characteristics of

State and Local Youth

Training Programs

Differ From Those of

Job Corps

State and local entities have established a wide array of youth training

programs using funds from various sources, including federal, state, and

local governments and private contributors. While many of these programs

share some individual characteristics with Job Corps, we found that the

extent to which the four characteristics were present in state or locally

established youth training programs was limited. However, we did identify

two programs that had all four characteristics.

Most state officials we surveyed told us their states had programs that

provided disadvantaged youth with basic education. For example, the

Learning Center, operated by a Boston community-based antipoverty

organization, offers a specialized year-round alternative education

program for youth that includes alternative high school, general

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
B-271070 

equivalency diploma, and school-to-work programs. The program is not

residential nor does it provide vocational training.

Furthermore, some programs identified by state officials as offering basic

education also provided vocational training. The vocational training,

however, consisted of preemployment preparation or introduction to the

working world but not training in a specific occupation. For example, the

Youth Opportunities Unlimited program in Arkansas is a high school

intervention program, administered by the state’s Department of Higher

Education, designed to encourage economically disadvantaged youth to

remain in school. In addition to basic education, program participants

receive classroom training in preemployment and work maturity skills

combined with the practical application of skills provided through

on-campus employment. No job-specific skills training, however, is

provided.

Residential programs operated by the states generally targeted specific

populations—such as youths who have been involved with the court

system, disabled individuals, or substance abusers. For example, one

state-funded program, the Gulf Coast Trades Center in Texas, integrates in

a residential setting vocational training, basic education, and support

services for delinquent youth. The program is designed to prepare young

people for employment in one of nine trades including auto mechanics,

construction trades, and culinary arts. In addition, the program provides a

range of other services including counseling, health care, transitional

living assistance, and job search skills development.

Youth Service and

Conservation Corps

Programs Resemble

Job Corps

We found that state and local youth corps programs most closely

resembled Job Corps. Both youth corps programs and Job Corps operate

in a large number of states, typically serve disadvantaged youth, and

provide instruction to enhance basic education skills. On the other hand,

few youth corps programs are residential. We found two that contained all

four characteristics that describe Job Corps.

Youth corps programs originated in the 1930s when President Roosevelt

founded the Civilian Conservation Corps to provide alternative

employment for young men during the Great Depression. The program

was disbanded in 1942 but was revived with the enactment of legislation in

1970 that created the Youth Conservation Corps—a summer work

program. In 1977, the enactment of the Young Adult Conservation Corps

provided youths with year-round conservation-related employment and

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
B-271070 

educational opportunities. Both programs were virtually eliminated

through dramatic federal budget reductions in 1981.8

 By that time,

however, many states had begun to support these programs directly.

According to the National Association of Service and Conservation Corps,

81 year-round state and local youth corps programs operated in 32 states

and the District of Columbia in 1994, providing services to about 9,300

full-time participants. (See app. I for a listing of the 81 programs.) Funding

for these programs was about $166 million in 1994. Approximately

one-fourth of this funding was from federal sources, such as the Job

Training Partnership Act, the National and Community Service Act, and

the Community Development Block Grant. The remaining funds came

from state and local governments and private contributions. Over half of

the youth corps programs are operated by independent, nonprofit

organizations; the remainder are part of state and local governments.

We found two youth corps programs that most closely resembled the Job

Corps program from among the youth programs we identified; that is, they

operated residential sites; served disadvantaged youth; offered basic

education; and, to an extent, provided vocational training. We visited both

programs—California Conservation Corps, which had multiple locations in

California, and Seaborne Conservation Corps in Galveston, Texas—to

obtain detailed information on how these programs operated compared

with Job Corps.

California Conservation

Corps

The California Conservation Corps was established in 1976 to assist youth

in becoming more employable by providing educational opportunities and

meaningful work aimed at protecting and enhancing California’s natural

and human resources. The program’s motto “hard work, low pay,

miserable conditions” provides prospective enrollees with a preview of

corps life and reflects the nature of the program. For example, each year

about 85 youths participate in the Backcountry Trails Project and spend an

entire 6-month period in remote areas of California’s parks and forests

doing trail work. During this time, participants live in spartan tent camps

supplied by mule train and helicopter, hike as much as 15 miles each day

while clearing trails, and earn minimum wages for their efforts.

8

At its height during the mid-1970s, the summer Youth Conservation Corps program was funded at

$60 million. The program continues today, but at a greatly reduced funding level ($3 million). The

year-round Young Adult Conservation Corps program had an annual appropriation of about

$230 million during its first 3 years (fiscal years 1978 through 1980), but it was allowed to expire

without renewal in the early 1980s.

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
B-271070 

In 1994, the California Conservation Corps had an annual budget of about

$50 million and served about 1,700 youths at its 44 locations statewide, 13

of which were residential. Participants average 7.4 months in the program,

and almost two-thirds of participants live in the residential component. As

shown in figure 1, the program receives its operating funds from a variety

of sources—the largest source being the state’s general fund, which

contributes about 56 percent of the program’s operating budget. About a

third of the operating budget comes from revenue generated by program

activities, such as reimbursements for public service conservation work

and installation of energy-efficient lighting in public buildings. In addition,

the California Conservation Corps requires youths participating in the

residential component to pay the program for a portion of their room and

board. This accounts for approximately 10 percent of the program’s

operating funds.

Figure 1: 1994 Funding Sources for

California Conservation Corps

31.1% 55.8% • General Fund •

Fees for Work Performed

•

9.4%

Room and Board

•

3.7%

Other

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
B-271070 

Several differences exist between the California Conservation Corps and

Job Corps. For example, Job Corps seeks to enroll the most severely

disadvantaged youths who have multiple barriers to employment, while

the California Conservation Corps does not specifically target

disadvantaged youth—any California resident not on probation or parole

is eligible. However, over half of the participants are high school dropouts.

Job Corps participants receive an allowance of $50 to $80 per month and

receive free room and board and medical and dental services, whereas

California Conservation Corps participants earn a weekly wage but must

pay $225 per month for their room and board and another $50 per month if

they elect the optional health insurance.

Whereas Job Corps provides training in specific vocational areas and

emphasizes job placement in related occupations, the California

Conservation Corps seeks to improve the employability of its participants

primarily by providing work experience through environmental and public

conservation projects. Some of the skills involved in these projects may be

transferable to related fields in the labor market when the participants

leave the program, but employment in occupations related to the training

received is not a primary focus of the California Conservation Corps.

California Conservation Corps participants have been involved in such

projects as rebuilding trails at Yosemite National Park, fighting wildfires in

Southern California, installing solar panels at a state training facility in

Galt, landscaping San Diego’s Wild Animal Park, and cleaning up an oil

spill near Oxnard. According to program officials, many former

participants become employed as rangers with the National Park Service

and National Forest Service. Others who were enrolled in the energy

conservation program have found jobs in the private sector performing

similar work.

We visited two of the residential sites in California—Placer Service

District in Auburn and Delta Service District in Stockton. The Placer site is

located about 1 hour northeast of Sacramento, in a rural setting. The site is

self-contained, having been built in 1952 as a conservation camp for

convicts. The facilities consist of two dormitories (housing about 100

youths), an administration building, auto shop, wood shop, energy lab,

cafeteria, and recreation hall. Participants are not restricted to facility

grounds and can maintain their own vehicles. About half of all Placer

participants are in the energy conservation program, while most of the

other members participate in resource conservation activities. A few

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
B-271070 

opportunities also exist for specialist training as cook, auto mechanic, and

office clerk.

The Delta site is on the grounds of the Stockton Development Center, a

former state mental hospital. The site is located in an urban area and has

open access. The main building consists of an administrative area, a large

classroom, and several smaller classrooms. The building contains adjacent

wings for dormitories housing about 75 participants. Except for

administrative and operations staff, no other professional or medical staff

are on site. Most of the training opportunities at Delta are in the

environmental conservation area, such as fire fighting, flood control, and

erosion control.

Seaborne Conservation

Corps

The Seaborne Conservation Corps is a relatively new program, having

been established by Texas A&M University at Galveston in September 1994

through a partnership among the university, the Department of the Navy,

and the Texas National Guard, with support from the Corporation for

National and Community Service’s AmeriCorps. About two-thirds of its

$2 million budget is funded by the Department of Defense (Civil-Military

Cooperation) and the remainder is funded by AmeriCorps. Because of

funding uncertainties from both the Department of Defense and

AmeriCorps, program officials hope to turn to the state of Texas for

funding beyond its current class, which is scheduled to graduate in

May 1996.

Seaborne is a residential training program targeted to high school

dropouts. Its 7-month training program provides basic education, life skills

instruction, and vocational skills training. However, differences exist

between Seaborne and Job Corps. For example, Seaborne’s training

program has fixed start and end dates, whereas Job Corps uses an

open-entry/open-exit format. In addition, Seaborne participants train in a

military-style environment, including undergoing a 4-week boot camp,

observing military standards and discipline, and typically training and

working 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. Participants are required to

perform 900 hours of community service, which program officials believe

promotes a strong work ethic while instilling a sense of community pride.

All participants live aboard the T/S Texas Clipper, the Texas A&M

University training ship supplied by the Maritime Administration for

training students in the Texas State Maritime Training Program.

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
B-271070 

While no income requirement exists, participants must be high school

dropouts. Furthermore, the program will not accept delinquent youths or

youths who test positive for drugs. The program requires participants to

pass a military-type physical examination and prefers to enroll those who

can read at or above the grade 7 level, although exceptions may be made.

All interested youths are also interviewed by program staff in an attempt

to assess their motivation. Seaborne maintains a drug-free policy similar to

Job Corps’ Zero Tolerance policy. Seaborne tests each participant for

drugs at enrollment and then randomly tests a sample of participants (10

to 12 percent) each month. In addition, Seaborne tests any participant for

cause or suspicion and may command a 100-percent drug test at any time.

For example, all participants in the current class have been tested for

drugs following each home leave. If a participant tests positive at any time,

he or she is dismissed immediately from the program.

Seaborne’s vocational training component is tied directly to the local

economy by focusing on the maritime industry. Participants receive

maritime training on board the Clipper and perform an internship at the

University’s Center for Marine Training and Safety. According to the

program’s Director, the maritime industry has a critical need for

entry-level workers. He stated that he could easily find jobs for 300 youths

every year. However, not all participants want to work in the maritime

industry. In fact, of the 76 graduates from Seaborne’s first two classes,

only 21 (28 percent) became employed in the maritime industry. As shown

in figure 2, about 42 percent of Seaborne’s first two classes either dropped

out or were dismissed before completing the program. The attrition rate

has been reduced with each class—from 48 percent in the first class to

about 15 percent in the third (current) class. The program Director

attributed the 48-percent dropout rate in the first class to the staff’s not

fully explaining to prospective participants the program’s difficult lifestyle,

especially the military structure and discipline, the 16-hour days, and the

rigorous physical requirements.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
B-271070 

Figure 2: Program Outcomes for

Enrollees in Seaborne’s First Two

Classes in 1994 and 1995

28.5% • Job

16.9% • Education or Training

•

10.0%

Military

•41.5%

Dismissed/Quit

•

3.1%

Undecided

A distinguishing feature of the Seaborne program is the interrelationship

of a number of organizations. Seaborne is operated by a local university

specializing in ocean sciences. The university provides the ship that

participants live and train on, and all program staff are university

employees. Program staff have developed links with local maritime

companies, who have indicated they are willing to hire all Seaborne

graduates interested in maritime careers. The program has also cultivated

close relationships with area school districts, which are a major source of

prospective recruits. In addition, a private foundation and local bank have

cooperated in developing a guaranteed loan program for Seaborne

graduates. This low-interest loan program not only provides participants

with money to help them transition to the workplace but also gives them a

credit history. Seaborne also works closely with the Texas National Guard,

using its facilities and medical staff. Program staff use local Navy, Marine,

and National Guard recruiters for outreach and placement. Youths who

interview with military recruiters but are not eligible for the military are

often referred to Seaborne.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
B-271070 

Summary State or locally established youth training programs are offered in most

states. While many had characteristics similar to Job Corps, state and local

youth corps programs most closely resembled the Job Corps program. We

found two such programs—the California Conservation Corps and the

Seaborne Conservation Corps in Galveston, Texas—that contained all four

features that, taken together, characterize Job Corps. That is, they served

disadvantaged youth, provided basic education, offered vocational

training, and provided services in a residential setting. However, even

these two differed from Job Corps in the way they operated their

programs. For example, the California program does not specifically target

the disadvantaged, and Seaborne’s vocational training is geared toward

only one industry.

Agency and Other

Comments

In comments on a draft of this report, the Department of Labor generally

agreed with the information contained in the report. We have incorporated

Labor’s comments where appropriate. Labor pointed out that a fifth

feature of Job Corps that should not be overlooked is its emphasis on job

placement following program separation. We recognize Job Corps’ overall

goal of placement in a job or additional education and training and have so

noted this in our report. Labor also stated that, unlike most other

programs, Job Corps focuses on severely disadvantaged youth. Labor

believed that this distinction could be made clearer. We made minor

adjustments to our draft to clarify this distinction. Labor’s comments are

printed in appendix II.

We also provided pertinent sections from our draft report to officials from

the California Conservation Corps and Seaborne Conservation Corps for

their review. They agreed with our characterization of their programs and

provided minor technical clarifications. We incorporated their comments

where appropriate.

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.

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
B-271070 

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

me at (202) 512-7014 or Sigurd Nilsen at (202) 512-7003. Major contributors

to this report include Thomas Medvetz, Wayne Sylvia, and Marquita Sylvia.

Carlotta C. Joyner

Director, Education and

 Employment Issues

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
Page 15 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

State and Local

Year-Round Youth

Corps Programs

18

Appendix II 

Comments From the

Department of Labor

21

Figures Figure 1: 1994 Funding Sources for California Conservation

Corps

8

Figure 2: Program Outcomes for Enrollees in Seaborne’s First

Two Classes in 1994 and 1995

12

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
Page 17 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
Appendix I 

State and Local Year-Round Youth Corps

Programs

Year-round slots

State Name Residential Nonresidential

FY 1994

budgeta

(thousands)

Alaska Southeast Alaska Guidance Association 0 40 $1,390

Arizona Arizona Conservation Corps 0 60 1,300

Border Volunteer Corps 0 110 2,484

Arkansas Delta Service Corps b b b

California California Conservation Corps 1,063 683 49,000

Conservation Corps of Long Beach 0 82 1,625

East Bay Conservation Corps 0 132 5,749

Fresno Local Conservation Corps 0 50 764

Los Angeles Conservation Corps 0 180 6,441

Marin Conservation Corps 0 70 1,800

Orange County Conservation Corps 0 50 477

Sacramento Local Conservation Corps 0 130 1,841

San Francisco Conservation Corps 0 145 4,312

San Francisco Urban Service Project 0 24 370

San Jose Conservation Corps 0 95 2,455

Tulare County Conservation Corps 0 25 341

Urban Corps of San Diego 0 125 1,455

Colorado Colorado Youth Corps 0 18 200

Denver Urban Conservation Corps 0 25 113

District of Columbia D.C. Service Corps 0 100 1,222

Florida Eckerd Conservation & Service Corpsc 40 50 1,576

Greater Miami Service Corps 0 200 2,300

Orlando Urban Service Corps 0 60 850

Urban Conservation Corps (Palm Beach) 0 120 378

Georgia Georgia Peach Corps 0 120 2,811

Greater Atlanta Community Corps 0 10 185

Iowa Iowa Conservation Corps 0 50 2,290

Kansas Kickapoo Youth Conservation Corps 0 10 150

Topeka Youth Corps 0 24 396

Louisiana New Orleans Youth Action Corps 0 70 1,389

Maine Maine Conservation Corps 0 21 450

Portland Youth for Public Safety 0 15 351

Maryland Baltimore Civic Works 0 48 838

Community Year 0 26 429

Maryland Conservation Corps 10 50 697

Montgomery County Conservation Corps 0 40 526

(continued)

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
Appendix I 

State and Local Year-Round Youth Corps

Programs

Year-round slots

State Name Residential Nonresidential

FY 1994

budgeta

(thousands)

Massachusetts Berkshire Conservation Team 0 11 195

City C.O.R.E. 0 30 355

City Pride, Brockton’s Urban Youth Service

Corps 0 22 400

City Year, Inc.d 0 363 9,012e

Michigan Flint Youth Service Corps 0 33 294

Grand Rapids Service Corps 0 33 516

Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps 0 75 1,200

Minnesota Minnesota Conservation Corps 0 110 2,619

Mississippi Greater Jackson Youth Service Corps 0 38 895

Missouri Kansas City Area Youth Corps 0 50 460

Missouri Youth Service and Conservation

Corps 0 116 500

Montana Montana Conservation Corps 0 24 1,273

Nevada Nevada Business Services Youth Corps 0 180 700

New Jersey New Jersey Youth Corps 0 1,400 5,671

New Mexico Southern Rocky Mountain Service Corps 0 8 47

New York Albany Service Corps 0 58 651

Bronx Youth Conservation Corps 0 30 670

Cayuga County Conservation Corps 0 8 113

City Volunteer Corps, Inc. 0 483 6,760

West Seneca Service Action Corps 0 20 180

Year-Round Syracuse 0 32 750

Youth Energy Corps 0 32 900

Youth Resource Development Corporation 0 101 877

North Carolina Durham Service Corps 0 35 599

Winston-Salem Service Corps 0 20 275

Ohio Ohio Civilian Conservation Corps 80 120 5,691

Oregon Lane-Metro Youth Corps 0 109 685

Northwest Service Academy 30 60 2,675

Northwest Youth Corps 76 10 1,680

Oregon Youth Conservation Corps 0 150 800

Pennsylvania Lehigh Valley Youth Service Corps 0 27 323

Pennsylvania Conservation Corps 0 400 7,278

Step, Inc. Youth Corps 0 24 281

Texas Dallas Youth Services Corps 0 30 883

Seaborne Conservation Corps 100 0 2,000

Serve Houston Youth Corps 0 60 1,250

(continued)

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
Appendix I 

State and Local Year-Round Youth Corps

Programs

Year-round slots

State Name Residential Nonresidential

FY 1994

budgeta

(thousands)

Utah Youth Force: The Salt Lake County Service

and Conservation Corps 0 40 200

Virginia Opportunity Knocks 0 116 1,141

Washington Seattle Conservation Corps 0 55 2,400

Washington Conservation Corps 0 70 1,434

Washington Service Corps 0 280 3,215

West Virginia West Virginia Citizens’ Conservation Corps 0 64 1,200

Wisconsin Milwaukee Community Service Corps 0 85 1,648

Wisconsin Conservation Corps 0 361 5,607

Wisconsin Service Corps 0 35 322

aBudgets include funds for part-time and summer participants, where appropriate.

bInformation not available.

cProgram has an additional site in North Carolina.

dProgram has additional sites in California, Illinois, Ohio, Rhode Island, and South Carolina.

eBudget amounts are for Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. The other programs

began operation after fiscal year 1994.

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Labor

(205303) Page 22 GAO/HEHS-96-92 Job Corps and State-Run Programs
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. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

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 (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

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 Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100