United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Human Resources and

Intergovernmental Relations, Committee

on Government Reform and Oversight,

House of Representatives

May 1996 EMPLOYMENT

TRAINING

Successful Projects

Share Common

Strategy

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/HEHS-96-108

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-266315 

May 7, 1996

The Honorable Christopher Shays

Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources

 and Intergovernmental Relations

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The strength of international competition has highlighted the importance

to the U.S. economy of a skilled labor force to maintain a high standard of

living. In fiscal year 1995, the federal government appropriated about

$20 billion for about 163 employment training programs,1

 yet large

numbers of individuals remain unprepared for employment. Federally

funded employment training programs are designed to equip individuals

with the skills they need to obtain high-quality jobs. However,

congressional and public confidence in federal employment training

efforts has eroded in the face of concern that the myriad federally funded

employment training programs are characterized by conflicting

requirements, overlapping populations, and questionable outcomes. As a

result, legislative changes have been proposed to address these concerns

by consolidating a large number of federal programs and creating a limited

number of block grants to states.

Regardless of program structure, considerable uncertainty remains as to

how to make employment training initiatives more effective in helping

disadvantaged adults acquire and maintain permanent employment. In

light of this uncertainty, you asked us to identify the strategies used by

employment training projects considered successful in helping

economically disadvantaged adults.

To identify successful employment training projects, we obtained input

from state employment training officials and research groups, and we

researched employment training literature. In developing our list of

projects, we established the criteria for successful projects as those having

outstanding results measured by performance indicators such as

completion rates, job placement and retention rates, and placement wages.

From among about 120 employment training projects identified, we

winnowed down the list on the basis of the strength of the justification

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-96-108 Employment Training Projects
B-266315 

supporting the nomination and other factors, including the requirement

that projects maintain data on their services and outcomes. From the

resulting list, we selected six projects to visit that provided a variety of

geographic locations, client populations, program sizes, and funding

sources. Table 1 shows the projects we visited and the nomination source

and selection characteristics. We did our work between March 1995 and

March 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards. (Further information on our scope and methodology is in 

app. I.)

Table 1: Projects Visited, Nomination Source, and Selection Characteristics

Selection characteristics

Project Nomination source Location Training approach

Primary funding

sources Client focus

Arapahoe County

Employment and

Training,

Aurora, Colorado

Colorado Governor’s

Job Training Office

Suburban Training broker

approach

Job Training

Partnership Act

(JTPA) and Job

Opportunities and

Basic Skills Training

(JOBS)

JTPA-eligible and Aid

to Families With

Dependent Children/

JOBS clients

Center for Employment

Training (CET),

Reno, Nevada

Nevada State Job

Training Office

Urban/rural

mix

Training focused 

in three

service-related

occupations

JTPA and Pell 

grants

Hispanic,

non-Englishspeaking farm workers

Encore!, Port Charlotte,

Florida

National Center for

Research in

Vocational Education

1993 Exemplary

Vocational Education

Award

Rural Part of larger

comprehensive

on-site vocational

education program

Perkins Act Single parents,

displaced

homemakers, and

single pregnant

women

Focus: HOPE,

Detroit, Michigan

Congressional

testimony

Urban Multilevel training

in machining

State economic

development grant

Inner-city minority

Support and Training

Results in Valuable

Employment (STRIVE),

New York, New York

New York State Job

Training Partnership

Council

Urban Training focused

on attitude rather

than skills

Private Inner-city minority

The Private Industry

Council (TPIC),

Portland, Oregon

SRI’s study of JTPA

best practices

Mix of urban,

suburban,

rural

Training broker

approach

JTPA JTPA-eligible

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
B-266315 

Results in Brief The six successful projects we visited differ in size; funding sources; and

participant, or client, characteristics but share a common strategy

designed to enable their graduates to attain self-sufficiency. Although each

project may implement this strategy differently, the strategy has four key

features to help ensure that participants are successful in obtaining and

maintaining employment. Three of the projects had placement rates above

90 percent—two of these placed virtually all those who completed their

training. The other three projects placed two-thirds or more of those who

completed their training.

The first key feature of this common strategy is a focus on ensuring that

participants are committed to training and getting a job. Project officials

evaluate participants’ readiness upon entering the projects and nurture

participants’ commitment throughout the course of their involvement. For

example, at Focus: HOPE in Detroit, all participants—even those who

receive a cash subsidy—are required to pay a $10 weekly enrollment fee to

solidify their commitment to the project’s machinist training.

The second feature is removing barriers that could limit clients’ ability to

finish training and get and keep a job. All projects identify each client’s

potential needs and then provide, or arrange for, services to address those

needs. For example, Encore! in Port Charlotte, Florida, serves many

women suffering from low self-esteem, including displaced homemakers

and survivors of domestic abuse. Encore!’s 6-week workshop focuses on

building self-esteem so that these women are ready to enter occupational

training or go directly into a job.

Improving participants’ employability skills as part of their training

curriculum is the third feature of the strategy common to all six projects.

Employers want workers who exhibit attributes such as dependability,

promptness, ability to work effectively in groups, and ability to resolve

conflicts appropriately. For example, as part of their curriculum,

participants in both Focus: HOPE and Encore! are required to clock in

each day using a time card and are given sanctions when they violate time

and attendance rules.

The fourth feature is linking occupational skills training with the local

labor market. This linkage allows the project to monitor the local labor

market and make adjustments in course offerings to meet employer

demand. For example, the Center for Employment Training (CET) in Reno,

Nevada, eliminated an electronics course offering because the local labor

market did not absorb its supply of graduates. Also, Focus: HOPE, a

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
B-266315 

machinist training program, trains participants on less sophisticated

machinery as well as on state-of-the-art equipment to reflect the range of

skills sought by local employers.

Background Employment training projects that target economically disadvantaged

adults can receive funding from a wide variety of sources. A large number

of job training projects are federally funded; states fund some projects, as

well. Other job training projects are funded privately. Major sources of

federal employment training funds include the Job Training Partnership

Act (JTPA), the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program,

and the Food Stamp Employment and Training program.2

 Job training

assistance may also draw resources from higher education, such as Pell

grants or vocational education funding under the Perkins Act. Even when

a job training project receives most of its direct funding from one federal

or state agency, its clients may receive support services from other

sources. For example, a project participant may have training paid for by

JTPA but child care services paid for with JOBS funds.3

Evaluations of employment training efforts have focused either on a single

funding stream or, less frequently, on individual training sites. Both types

of study are complicated by a large number of intervening factors. Because

differences in client populations and local economic conditions partially

determine the impact of job training, no uniform standards establish what

should be expected from any job training program or project. As a result,

research efforts have largely focused on determining whether job training

is effective in increasing employment and wages above the level

participants could be expected to achieve without training. Some of these

studies looked at the effect of large-scale federal initiatives operating

across many sites nationwide.4

 A few researchers looked at smaller-scale

2

For a discussion of the broad range of federal training programs, see GAO/T-HEHS-95-53, Jan. 10,

1995.

3

For a further discussion of the relationship between JOBS and JTPA, see JOBS and JTPA: Tracking

Spending, Outcomes, and Program Performance (GAO/HEHS-94-177, July 15, 1994); Job Training

Partnership Act: Actions Needed to Improve Participant Support Services (GAO/HRD-92-124, June 12,

1992); and Welfare to Work: Measuring Outcomes for JOBS Participants (GAO/HEHS-95-86, Apr. 17,

1995).

4

For example, see Job Training Partnership Act: Long-Term Earnings and Employment Outcomes

(GAO/HEHS-96-40, Mar. 4, 1996) and Job Training Partnership Act: Services and Outcomes for

Participants With Differing Needs (GAO/HRD-89-52, June 9, 1989). See also Larry L. Orr and others,

The National JTPA Study: Impacts, Benefits, and Costs of Title II-A (Bethesda, Md.: Abt Associates,

Inc., Mar. 1994); Abt Associates, Inc., Evaluation of the Food Stamp Employment Program (Bethesda,

Md.: Abt Associates, Inc., June 1990); and Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., International Trade and

Worker Dislocation: Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program (Princeton, N.J.:

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Apr. 1993).

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
B-266315 

efforts, either at one particular site or at several sites.5 In addition, other

studies examined the effectiveness of providing or subsidizing certain

support services for a specific clientele who may not be in job training.6

Although all these studies provide insight into job training initiatives, little

systematic research has been done on the reasons training projects

succeed or fail, especially at the individual project level. Speculation about

project success, either at one site or across projects, has generally been at

a theoretical or conceptual level and has been limited to one or a few

factors rather than a comprehensive approach. Nonetheless, a few case

studies of selected training projects have pointed to several factors that

may influence the quality of training or the success in job placement at

specific training centers. For example, in 1991 the Department of Labor

studied 15 randomly selected JTPA sites and examined factors that

influenced the quality of training.7

 The researchers concluded that quality

training would generally include (1) basic skills training, preferably

integrated closely with occupational training; (2) individual case

management by project employees; (3) training for participants in what is

expected in the working world; (4) high-quality classroom instruction; and

(5) assurance that the jobs for which the participants are being trained are

available in the local labor market. Similarly, a study of successful JTPA

sites by SRI International, which also used case studies, concluded that

links to the local labor market are important in facilitating job placement.8

In our report on JTPA training for dislocated workers, we identified links to

the local labor market, an individualized approach to services, and

personal support and follow-up as common themes across eight

exemplary projects.9

 Studies of vocational education programs have found

5

For example, see Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, GAIN: Two-Year Impacts in Six

Counties—California’s Greater Avenues for Independence Program (New York: Manpower

Demonstration Research Corporation, May 1993).

6

For example, see Child Care: Child Care Subsidies Increase Likelihood That Low-Income Mothers Will

Work (GAO/HEHS-95-20, Dec. 30, 1994). Also see Mark C. Berger and Dan A. Black, “Child Care

Subsidies, Quality of Care, and the Labor Supply of Low-Income, Single Mothers,” Review of

Economics and Statistics, 74(4) (Nov. 1992), pp. 635-42.

7

U.S. Department of Labor, Improving the Quality of Training Under JTPA, Research and Evaluation

Report Series 91-A (Washington, D.C.: 1991).

8

Katherine P. Dickinson and others, JTPA Best Practices in Assessment, Case Management, and

Providing Appropriate Services (Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International and Social Policy Research

Associates, June 1994). See also Welfare to Work: Most AFDC Training Programs Not Emphasizing Job

Placement (GAO/HEHS-95-113, May 19, 1995).

9

Dislocated Workers: Exemplary Local Projects Under the Job Training Partnership Act

(GAO/HRD-87-70BR, Apr. 8, 1987).

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
B-266315 

such overlapping themes as school climate, administration, and

leadership, to be important to success.10

While we relied partially on these and other studies to guide our initial

case study protocol, our study differs from most previous efforts in several

respects. First, we focused specifically on services to economically

disadvantaged adults; we excluded services to dislocated workers and

youth. Second, while previous studies focused on a single funding stream,

we expanded our focus to include any successful project regardless of

funding source; of the six projects we selected, one received no JTPA

funding, one received nearly all its funding from JTPA, and the others

supplemented JTPA funding with funds from other sources. Third, because

we assumed that good leadership and management would be essential to

any project’s success, we focused on tangible components, or features, of

the program or service delivery, rather than on organizational structure or

dynamics. Finally, instead of narrowing our approach to a single project

phase, such as training or placement, or a single service delivery method,

such as the case management method, we employed a comprehensive

approach to allow us to identify commonalities across the successful

projects we examined.

Figure 1 shows the locations of the projects we visited. The six job

training projects all focus on enabling their economically disadvantaged

participants to obtain employment with benefits that would allow them to

become self-sufficient; however, the projects vary considerably in the

participants they serve and in the specific services they provide to meet

those participants’ needs.

10See, for example, George Wardlow and others, Institutional Factors Underlying Excellence in

Vocational Education (St. Paul: University of Minnesota, 1990), or a discussion of literature in George

Wardlow and Gordon Swanson, Institutional-Level Factors and Excellence in Vocational Education: A

Review of the Literature (Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University

of California, 1991).

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
B-266315 

Figure 1: Location of Projects Visited

New York City

Port Charlotte

Reno

Detroit

Portland

Aurora

TPIC

CET

Arapahoe

Focus: HOPE

STRIVE

Encore!

The Arapahoe County Employment and Training Division (Arapahoe)

administers JTPA in Colorado’s Arapahoe and Douglas Counties; it also

administers the JOBS program in Arapahoe County. Located in Aurora,

Colorado, a suburb of Denver, Arapahoe’s job training programs and

services are intended to increase employment and earnings for

economically disadvantaged adults within these counties and reduce

welfare dependency. During 1994, Arapahoe served 541 disadvantaged

adults, with a job placement rate of about 69 percent for those completing

occupational skills training. The project uses a case management

approach, with assessment and follow-up performed in-house and basic

skills and job-specific training provided by area contractors. (See app. II

for a detailed description of this project.)

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
B-266315 

Reno’s CET, one of more than 30 centers in the nationwide CET network, is

a community-based, nonprofit organization providing job training to

disadvantaged adults, primarily Hispanic migrant farmworkers.

Participants pay tuition for their training and may receive federal, state, or

local financial aid. The Reno CET provides on-site training in three specific

training areas: building maintenance, automated office skills, and shipping

and receiving. It also provides remedial education and English language

instruction. In 1994, the Reno location served 94 participants and achieved

a 92-percent job placement rate for project completers. (See app. III for a

detailed description of this project.)

Encore!, located in Port Charlotte, Florida, prepares single parents;

displaced homemakers; and single, pregnant women for high-wage

occupations in order to help them become self-sufficient. This project is

largely funded by a federal grant under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and

Applied Technology Education Act of 1990 and is strongly linked to the

Charlotte Vocational Technical Center (Vo-Tech). Encore!’s primary

components are a 6-week prevocational workshop and a year-round

support system for participants during their vocational training. The

workshop is intended to prepare participants for skills training. About

99 percent of all Encore! participants complete their vocational training at

Vo-Tech. In the 1993-94 school year, 194 Encore! participants were

enrolled at Vo-Tech. For this same year, the Vo-Tech campuswide

placement rate was 95 percent. (See app. IV for a detailed description of

this project.)

Focus: HOPE, a civil and human rights organization in Detroit, was

founded in 1968 to resolve the effects of discrimination. Its machinist

training program, started in 1981, is intended to break down

discrimination in machinist trades and high-tech manufacturing industries

and to provide disadvantaged adults with marketable skills. Focus: HOPE

has three on-site training levels—FAST TRACK, the Machinist Training

Institute (MTI), and the Center for Advanced Technologies (CAT). It serves

inner-city adults and relies on federal and state grants as well as on private

contributions. For the 1993-94 year, there were 185 participants in MTI, and

75 percent completed the program. Of these, 99 percent were placed. (See

app. V for a detailed description of this project.)

Support and Training Results in Valuable Employment (STRIVE) is a

primarily privately funded employment training and placement project for

inner-city adults in New York City who have experienced difficulty

securing and maintaining employment. STRIVE’s founders believe gainful

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
B-266315 

employment is the most critical element to individuals and families living

in disenfranchised neighborhoods of New York City who hope to achieve

self-sufficiency. STRIVE Central—one of 10 community-based organizations

in New York’s STRIVE Employment Group—is located in East Harlem and

prepares participants for the work place through a strict, demanding

3-week attitudinal training workshop. STRIVE Central provides no

occupational training; however, STRIVE provides a long-term commitment

of at least 2 years to help graduates maintain and upgrade their

employment. During 1994, STRIVE Central trained 415 adults and placed

77 percent of these project graduates. (See app. VI for a detailed

description of this project.)

The Private Industry Council (TPIC) is a private, nonprofit organization

providing employment training services to low-income residents in the city

of Portland, Oregon, and the counties of Washington and Multnomah. The

federal government provides 85 percent of TPIC’s funding through JTPA.

TPIC’s mission is to promote individual self-sufficiency and a skilled

workforce by eliminating barriers to productive employment, and the

project delivers most services for disadvantaged adults from three

neighborhood centers. During the 1994 program year, TPIC served a total of

682 disadvantaged adults. Of those completing occupational skills training,

about 77 percent were placed. (See app. VII for a detailed description of

this project.)

Key Features of Job

Training Strategy

Shared by Successful

Projects

Although the common strategy may be implemented differently, each

project incorporates four key features into its strategy: (1) ensuring that

participants are committed to training and getting a job; (2) removing

barriers, such as lack of child care, that might limit participants’ ability to

get and keep a job; (3) improving participants’ employability skills, such as

getting to a job regularly and on time, working well with others while

there, and dressing and behaving appropriately; and (4) linking

occupational skills training with the local labor market.

Projects Ensure Client

Commitment to Training

and Getting a Job

Each of the projects tries to secure participant commitment before

enrollment and continues to encourage that commitment throughout

training. Staff at several projects believe the voluntary nature of their

projects is an important factor in fostering strong client commitment. Just

walking through the door, however, does not mean that a participant is

committed to the program. Further measures to encourage, develop, and

require this commitment are essential. All of the projects we visited use

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
B-266315 

some of these measures, such as (1) making sure participants know what

to expect, so they are making an informed choice when they enter;

(2) creating opportunities for participants to screen themselves out if they

are not fully committed; and (3) requiring participants to actively

demonstrate the seriousness of their commitment.

The initial step the projects take to ensure client commitment is to reveal

the project’s expectations to potential participants before enrollment so

that they can make an informed choice about entering the program.

Through orientation sessions, assessment workshops, and one-on-one

interviews with project staff, participants receive detailed information

about project expectations. Project officials say they do this to minimize

any misunderstandings that could lead to participant attrition. Officials at

both STRIVE and Arapahoe told us they do not want to spend scarce dollars

on individuals who are not committed to completing their programs and

moving toward full-time employment; they believe it is important to target

their efforts to those most willing to take full advantage of the project’s

help.

For example, at STRIVE’s preprogram orientation session, staff members

give potential participants a realistic preview of the project. STRIVE staff

explain their strict requirements for staying in the project—attending

every day, on time; displaying an attitude open to change and able to take

criticism; and completing all homework assignments. At the end of the

session, STRIVE staff tell potential participants to take the weekend to think

about whether they are serious about obtaining employment, and if so, to

return on Monday to begin training. STRIVE staff told us that typically

10 percent of those who attend the orientation do not return on Monday.

Several of the other projects we visited also create opportunities for

participants to screen themselves out of the project if they are not fully

committed to it. Both CET and Focus: HOPE allow potential participants to

try out their training at no charge to ensure the project is suitable for

them. Focus: HOPE reserves the right to reject potential participants on

the basis of their attitude, but it does not routinely do this. Instead, staff

will provisionally accept the participant into one of the training programs

but put that participant on notice that his or her attitude will be

monitored.

All six projects require participants to actively demonstrate the

seriousness of their commitment to both training and employment. For

example, all projects require participants to sign an agreement of

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
B-266315 

commitment outlining the participants’ responsibilities while in training,

and all projects monitor attendance throughout participants’ enrollment.

In addition, some project officials believe that requiring participants to

contribute to training is important to encouraging commitment. For

example, STRIVE project staff told us that their policy of providing

participants with one daily subway token is designed to emphasize the

partnership between STRIVE and the client by demonstrating STRIVE’s

support to get the client to training, but also requiring a contribution from

him or her for the trip home. Similarly, Focus: HOPE requires

participants—even those receiving cash subsidies—to pay a small weekly

fee for their training, typically $10 a week. A Focus: HOPE administrator

explained that project officials believe students are more committed when

they are “paying customers,” and this small payment discourages potential

participants who are not seriously committed to training.

Projects Tailor Their

Approach to Remove

Barriers to Training and

Employment

A number of employment training studies emphasize removing

employment barriers as a key to successful outcomes.11 As indicated by

their client assessments, the projects we visited define a barrier as

anything that precludes an individual from participating in and completing

training, as well as anything that could potentially inhibit his or her ability

to obtain and maintain a job. For example, if a client lacks appropriate

basic skills, then providing basic skills training can allow him or her to

build those skills and enter occupational training. Similarly, if a client does

not have adequate transportation, he or she will not be able to get to the

training. Because all of the projects we visited have attendance

requirements, a lack of adequate child care would likely affect the ability

of a client who is a parent to successfully complete training. Moreover, a

client who is living in a domestic abuse situation may find it difficult to

focus on learning a new skill or search for a job.

All six projects we visited use a comprehensive assessment process to

identify the particular barriers each client faces. This assessment can take

many forms, including orientation sessions, workshops, one-on-one

interviews, interactions with project staff, or a combination of these. For

example, at TPIC’s assessment workshop, participants complete a five-page

barrier/needs checklist on a wide variety of issues, including food,

11For example, see Job Corps: High Costs and Mixed Results Raise Questions About Program’s

Effectiveness (GAO/HEHS-95-180, June 30, 1995); U.S. Department of Labor, Improving the Quality of

Training Under JTPA; U.S. Department of Labor, What’s Working (and What’s Not), A Summary of

Research on the Economic Impact of Employment and Training Programs, Jan. 1995;

GAO/HRD-92-124, June 12, 1992; and Gary Orfield and Helene Slessarev, Job Training Under the New

Federalism, ch. 13 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986).

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
B-266315 

housing, clothing, transportation, financial matters, health, and

social/support issues. At the end of this workshop, participants must

develop a personal statement and a self-sufficiency plan that they and the

case manager use as a road map to address barriers throughout training.

Encore! and Arapahoe have similar processes for identifying and

addressing barriers participants face. Rather than relying on a formal

workshop or orientation process, CET identifies participants’ needs

through one-on-one interviews with project staff when a client enters the

project. Throughout the training period, instructors, the job developer, and

other project staff work to provide support services and address clients’

ongoing needs.

All of the projects arrange for clients to get the services they need to

address barriers, but—because of the wide range of individual participant

needs—none of them provides all possible services on-site. For example,

although all six projects recognize the importance of basic skills training,12

they arrange for this training in different ways. Arapahoe contracts out for

basic skills training; CET, Encore!, and Focus: HOPE provide this service

on-site; and TPIC and STRIVE refer clients to community resources. Only

Focus: HOPE provides on-site child care; however, the other five projects

help clients obtain financial assistance to pay for child care or refer them

to other resources.13 Because some of the projects we visited attract many

clients who have similar needs, these projects provide certain services

on-site to better tailor their services to that specific population. For

example, because it serves Hispanic migrant farmworkers with limited

English proficiency, CET provides an on-site English-as-a-second-language

program. Likewise, because a major barrier for many of Encore!’s clients

is low self-esteem resulting from mental abuse, physical abuse, or both,

Encore! designed its 6-week workshop to build self-esteem and address

the barriers these women face so that they are then ready to enter

occupational training.

In addition to services provided during training, most of the projects

followed up with clients after they completed training to ensure that

barriers did not reappear or that new ones did not arise that would affect

clients’ ability to maintain employment. STRIVE and CET follow up on a

regular basis after job placement to monitor participants’ progress and

12The importance of basic skills training for JTPA-eligible clients is discussed in U.S. Department of

Labor, Improving the Quality of Training Under JTPA.

13Researchers have stressed the importance of obtaining affordable, quality child care to facilitate

employment. For example, see GAO/HRD-92-124, June 12, 1992; GAO/HEHS-95-20, Dec. 30, 1994; and

Berger and Black, “Child Care Subsidies, Quality of Care, and the Labor Supply of Low-Income, Single

Mothers.”

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
B-266315 

determine whether additional assistance is needed to ensure job retention.

For example, STRIVE has a commitment to contact its participants on a

quarterly basis for 2 years following program completion. During these

contacts, STRIVE personnel assess progress and suggest ways that

participants can continue to progress in their job. For 6 months, CET’s job

developer makes monthly calls to employers who have hired CET graduates

to troubleshoot any problems that may have arisen and to monitor

progress. The job developer also follows up with graduates for 2 years

after program completion.

Projects Improve

Employability Skills

Essential for Employment

Research confirms the necessity for employability skills, especially for

individuals without work experience.14 For example, the Secretary of

Labor’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills’ 1991 report, What

Work Requires of Schools, which included discussions and meetings with

employers, unions, employees, and supervisors, verified that skills such as

taking responsibility, self-management, and working well with others are

required to enter employment. Because so many of these projects’

participants have not had successful work experiences, they often do not

have the basic knowledge others might take for granted about how to

function in the workplace. They need to learn what behaviors are

important and how to demonstrate them successfully. These behaviors

include getting to work regularly and on time; dressing appropriately;

working well with others; accepting constructive feedback; resolving

conflicts appropriately; and, in general, being a reliable, responsible

employee.

Each project we visited coaches participants in employability skills

through on-site workshops or one-on-one sessions. For example, CET

provides a human development program that addresses such issues as life

skills, communication strategies, and developing good work habits.

Similarly, Arapahoe helps each client develop employment readiness

competencies, such as interpersonal relations, a work ethic,

demonstrating a positive attitude and behavior, and appropriate dress,

either through a workshop or one-on-one with client case managers. TPIC

starts working on employability skills right away when clients attend the

required assessment workshop. This workshop covers employer

expectations, self-defeating behaviors, giving and receiving feedback on

one’s work, communication and listening skills, decision-making, work

14For example, see U.S. Department of Labor, The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary

Skills, What Work Requires of Schools (Washington, D.C.: 1991); GAO/HEHS-95-180, June 30, 1995; and

John Burghardt and Anne Gordon, More Jobs and Higher Pay: How an Integrated Program Compares

With Traditional Programs (New York: Rockefeller Foundation, 1990).

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
B-266315 

attitudes, time management, handling conflict on the job, and dealing with

difficult people. Some of the projects we visited also develop

employability skills within the context of the occupational skills training,

with specific rules about punctuality, attendance, and, in some cases,

appropriate clothing consistent with the occupation for which clients are

training.

STRIVE concentrates almost exclusively on employability skills and, in

particular, attitudinal training. This project has a very low tolerance for

behaviors such as being even a few minutes late for class, not completing

homework assignments, not dressing appropriately for the business world,

and not exhibiting an appropriate attitude. We observed staff dismissing

clients from the program for a violation of any of these elements, telling

them they may enroll in another offering of the program when they are

ready to change their behavior. Project staff work hard to rid clients of

their “victim mentality”—that is, believing that things are beyond their

control—and instill in them a responsibility for themselves, as well as

make them understand the consequences of their actions in the work

place. For example, we observed one client who exhibited inappropriate

behavior in class by consistently rolling her eyes and tuning out the

instructor. The instructor called her attention to this behavior, but the

client denied it. When this client argued with the instructor about her

behavior, he removed her from class to counsel her, but she persisted in

arguing with him. Within minutes, she was dismissed from the project.

Another example of getting clients to think about consequences at STRIVE is

through dress-down day. STRIVE has a dress-down day to simulate such

situations in the work place and to get a sense of what its clients consider

appropriate dressing down. On one such occasion, a client came to class

wearing a T-shirt with a marijuana leaf pattern on the front of it. The

project instructor called the class’ attention to this client’s manner of dress

to explain the importance of the image one creates with dress and the

message sent to an employer with an inappropriate outfit. During the

lunch break, the client bought a more appropriate T-shirt.

Projects Link Occupational

Skills Training to the Local

Labor Market

Five of the six projects we visited provide occupational training,15 using

information from the local labor market to guide their selection of training

options for participants. These projects focus on occupations that the

local labor market will support. Project staff strive to ensure that the

training they provide will lead to self-sufficiency—jobs with good earnings

15The sixth site, STRIVE, does not offer occupational training but uses its connections with local

employers to get clients into the workforce after short-term attitudinal training. Then it offers

continuing assistance to clients for up to 2 years after course completion.

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
B-266315 

potential as well as benefits. In addition, all but one of the six projects use

their links to local employers to assist clients with job placement. While

their approaches to occupational training and job placement differ, the

common thread among the projects is their ability to interpret the needs of

local employers and provide them with workers who fit their

requirements.

All five of the projects that provide occupational training are selective in

the training options they offer clients, focusing on occupational areas that

are in demand locally. For example, CET and Focus: HOPE have chosen to

limit their training to one or a few very specific occupational areas project

staff know the local labor market can support. Focus: HOPE takes

advantage of the strong automotive manufacturing base in the Detroit area

by offering training in a single occupation serving the automotive

industry—machining. With this single occupational choice, Focus: HOPE

concentrates primarily on meeting the needs of the automotive industry

and the local firms that supply automotive parts. Participants are

instructed by skilled craftspeople—many senior instructors at Focus:

HOPE are retirees who are passing on the knowledge they acquired during

their careers. The machines used in training are carefully chosen to

represent those that are available in local machine shops—both

state-of-the-art and older, less technically sophisticated equipment. Job

developers sometimes visit potential work sites, paying close attention to

the equipment in use. This information is then used to ensure a good

match between program participant and employer.

CET offers three occupational training areas—automated office skills,

building maintenance, and shipping and receiving—on the basis of the

needs of the local labor market. CET previously offered training in

electronics but eliminated this training because the local electronics

industry did not absorb the continual supply of CET graduates. Because

Reno has a considerable number of apartment buildings and hotels, CET

replaced the electronics program with a building maintenance program.

CET uses local industry connections to keep its curricula current and to

help ensure that its clients meet employers’ needs. For example, one CET

instructor told us he takes his classes on field trips to area businesses to

help keep his knowledge current and to give program participants a

firsthand look at the business world.

While offering a wide range of training options, Vo-Tech, which trains

Encore! participants, is linked to the local labor market in part by its craft

advisory committees. These committees involve 160 businesses in

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
B-266315 

determining course offerings and curricula. Vo-Tech recently discontinued

its bank teller program shortly after a series of local bank mergers

decreased demand for this skill. It began offering an electronics program

when that industry started to expand in the Port Charlotte area. Vo-Tech

also annually surveys local employers on its graduates’ skills and abilities,

using the feedback to make changes to its programs. When feedback from

local employers in one occupation indicated that Vo-Tech graduates were

unable to pass state licensing exams, the school terminated the instructors

and hired new ones.

All of the projects we visited assist clients in their job search. Five of the

six projects had job developers or placement personnel who work to

understand the needs of local employers and provide them with workers

who fit their requirements. For example, at Focus: HOPE the job

developers may visit local employers to discuss their skills needs, since

virtually all graduates of Focus: HOPE are hired into machinist jobs

locally. The placement staff working with Encore! graduates noted that

there are more positions to fill than Vo-Tech graduates. They believe that,

because of their close ties with the community and the relevance of their

training program, they have established a reputation of producing

well-trained graduates. This reputation leads employers to trust their

referrals.

Summary While the six successful employment training projects we visited differ in

size, funding sources, and client characteristics, they share a common

strategy to prepare clients for self-sufficiency. This common

strategy—resulting in placement rates of over 90 percent for three of the

projects we visited—incorporates four key features that include ensuring

commitment to training and getting a job, removing barriers that might

limit a client’s ability to finish training and get and keep a job, improving

employability skills, and linking occupational skills training with the local

labor market. Although the projects implement them differently, together

these features help ensure that clients are ready, willing, and able to

participate in and benefit from training and employment assistance and

move toward self-sufficiency.

Agency Comments The Department of Labor commented that our report substantiates

findings from its studies of exemplary practices in job training programs

serving disadvantaged adults and dislocated workers. Labor also said that

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
B-266315 

this information would be useful to practitioners in the employment

training community as the community continues to improve its programs.

Labor had three suggestions for improving the usefulness of the report to

the employment training community. The first suggestion was to identify a

contact person at each of our case study projects. We have included this

information in the appendixes. Second, Labor suggested we list all of the

projects that were nominated but not included in our case studies. We

agree this would be potentially helpful to other projects and plan to

provide such a list to Labor for it to disseminate as appropriate.

Last, Labor noted that the leveraging of community resources, along with

the use of community supportive services to enhance the overall program

investment, is also an important feature of projects in general and should

be highlighted as such. While we agree that some of the projects we visited

used community resources extensively and that this practice enhanced

their ability to serve disadvantaged adults in their programs, not all the

projects used this approach. For this reason, we did not include it as a part

of the common strategy. Labor’s comments are printed in appendix VIII.

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

Director, Office of Management and Budget; relevant congressional

committees; and other interested parties.

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

me at (202) 512-7014 or Sigurd R. Nilsen at (202) 512-7003. GAO contacts

and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix IX.

Sincerely yours,

Carlotta C. Joyner

Director, Education and

 Employment Issues

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Scope and

Methodology

20

Project Selection Strategy 20

Data Collection and Analysis 20

Appendix II 

Arapahoe County

Employment and

Training Division,

Aurora, Colorado

23

Participant Characteristics 23

Project Structure 24

Project Outcomes 25

Appendix III 

Center for

Employment Training,

Reno, Nevada

26

Participant Characteristics 26

Project Structure 26

Project Outcomes 28

Appendix IV 

Encore!, Port

Charlotte, Florida

29

Participant Characteristics 29

Project Structure 30

Project Outcomes 31

Appendix V 

Focus: HOPE, Detroit,

Michigan

32

Participant Characteristics 32

Project Structure 33

Project Outcomes 34

Appendix VI 

STRIVE Central, New

York City

35

Participant Characteristics 35

Project Structure 36

Project Outcomes 37

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Contents

Appendix VII 

The Private Industry

Council, Portland,

Oregon

38

Participant Characteristics 38

Project Structure 39

Project Outcomes 40

Appendix VIII 

Comments From the

Department of Labor

41

Appendix IX 

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

43

Bibliography 44

Related GAO Products 48

Table Table 1: Projects Visited, Nomination Source, and Selection

Characteristics

2

Figure Figure 1: Location of Projects Visited 7

Abbreviations

CAT Center for Advanced Technologies

CET Center for Employment Training

JOBS Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training

JTPA Job Training Partnership Act

MTI Machinist Training Institute

STRIVE Support and Training Results in Valuable Employment

TPIC The Private Industry Council

Vo-Tech Charlotte Vocational Technical Center

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

We designed our study to identify factors and strategies associated with

successful employment training projects for disadvantaged adults. To do

so, we reviewed the current literature and visited training projects

nominated as exemplary, conducted extensive interviews, and reviewed

training processes. We applied a standardized process to identify common

strategies across projects. We did our work between March 1995 and

March 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards.

Project Selection

Strategy

To identify projects to review, we studied the literature and recent

employment training award nominations for projects deemed successful.

We also requested nominations of exemplary employment training

projects from each of the 50 states’ and the District of Columbia’s

workforce development councils. In seeking nominations, we defined

exemplary projects as those with outstanding results measured by

performance indicators such as participant completion rates, job

placement and retention rates, and placement wages. Because no

nationwide standard exists with which to judge a project’s success, we did

not establish a baseline standard for placement rate, completion rate, or

other measure to qualify as an acceptable nomination. Instead, we asked

the nominator to provide a rationale for the specific nomination—in other

words, why the project was considered successful.

The nomination process identified about 120 successful projects, including

82 submissions from 32 states and the District of Columbia, and about 38

projects identified in the literature or as recipients of national training

awards. Finalists were chosen for further consideration on the basis of

how closely they satisfied key selection criteria. These criteria included

focusing on serving disadvantaged adults, having project service and

outcome data available, and having strong justification supporting the

nomination. We contacted project finalists to collect additional

information on client demographics, funding sources and amounts,

services provided, and outcomes obtained. We selected the projects

judgmentally to provide a mixture of (1) geographic locations, (2) urban

and rural locations, (3) project sizes, (4) targeted populations, and

(5) funding sources.

Data Collection and

Analysis

We did our fieldwork using a systematic standardized case study

methodology. To collect the data, teams of at least three people spent 2 to

5 days at each nominated site. During these project visits, we interviewed

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

participants, project officials, training providers, and local employers.

Additionally, we toured facilities, observed project operations, and

reviewed a sample of participant records.

To guide our interviews and observations, we employed a detailed topic

outline. This outline was derived from concepts contained in the literature

and included ways these concepts might be operationalized in the field. To

ascertain relevant concepts to be investigated in the field, we reviewed

numerous publications examining successful job training practices. We

focused our review on the employment training literature that explored

the reasons particular projects or organizations were viewed as successful,

rather than concentrating on empirical research that measured changes in

earnings or employment. Using the theories and observations that

emerged from this literature, we developed a list of concepts relating to

project operations and structure that included easy access to services,

tailoring of services to client needs, and strong linkages to the labor

market. Applying these concepts to practices, we developed a list of the

ways in which they might be operationalized in the field. When we were

examining, for example, the concept of easy access to services, we

reviewed the projects’ outreach and recruiting strategies, and we looked

for clear points of entry into the project, pathways between programs

within the projects, and a streamlined intake process. For tailoring of

project services, we focused on the types of services the project provided,

how the services were delivered, and how the various services were

integrated into the rest of the project.

As part of the structured methodology, we conducted extensive team

debriefings daily during data collection to record and discuss the

observations of the day and to perform quality control of our data

collection effort. At regular intervals during the data collection phase, the

entire work group met to perform a cross-case analysis of the obtained

data. During this analysis, concepts were assigned alphanumeric values on

the basis of a team rating of that element’s presence or absence at a given

project. We also used this method to evaluate the criticality of that

element to site operation. Through this cross-case analysis, concepts

occasionally emerged that warranted further field testing. Items in our

interview guide were augmented with the newly surfaced concepts and the

presence of these constructs was tested at the remaining projects. For

example, the issue of client readiness/commitment was one of those new

concepts that emerged early in our data collection. At subsequent projects,

when we focused on participant commitment, we examined the structure

of their orientation and other intake and assessment processes as well as

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

the nature of the periodic interactions between participant and project

staff.

At the end of data collection and scoring, we reviewed the ratings across

the six projects and agreed on the key features essential for project

success. Findings presented in this report represent those elements

considered essential for the projects’ success at all six project sites.

Some limitations exist in this type of case study methodology. Case studies

can provide insights into how a practice works in a specific context, but

findings from a case study cannot necessarily be extended to training

programs generally. Furthermore, because participation in each of the

projects we visited was voluntary, we did not observe the strategies

employed under a system in which participation would be mandatory.16

The numerical data we present—for example, job placement rates—were

collected directly from the projects, and we made no attempt to verify

their accuracy except where data were available from existing federal

databases. In addition, we did not gather evidence to confirm or refute the

validity of the nomination.

16See Welfare to Work: State Programs Have Tested Some of the Proposed Reforms

(GAO/PEMD-95-26, July 14, 1995).

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix II 

Arapahoe County Employment and Training

Division, Aurora, Colorado

The Arapahoe County Employment and Training Division (Arapahoe)

administers the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) in Arapahoe and

Douglas Counties in Colorado. Arapahoe has been involved with

employment training for about 20 years since the Comprehensive

Employment and Training Act transferred federal funds and

decision-making authority to the local level. Job training programs and

services sponsored by the Arapahoe/Douglas Private Industry Council,

which includes Arapahoe, are intended to increase employment, increase

earnings, and reduce welfare dependency within these counties.

Arapahoe uses various resources to develop its participants’ potential to

achieve self-sufficiency. These include (1) employment and training

resources, such as the Aurora Job Service and the Colorado Vocational

Rehabilitation Services; (2) educational resources, such as Arapahoe

Community College and Aurora Public Schools; and (3) community

resources, such as the Aurora Mental Health Center, Aurora Food Stamp

Office, and Aurora Housing Authority. Under a contract with the Arapahoe

County Department of Social Services, Arapahoe administers the Job

Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program for that county and

the Food Stamp Employment and Training Program. Further, Arapahoe

leverages federal funds, using grants from local contributors to enhance its

resources. For example, state and local governments must match federal

JOBS funds—the federal government provides 50 percent of the funding,

and state and local governments provide 30 and 20 percent, respectively.

Participant

Characteristics

During the 1994 program year, Arapahoe served 541 adults. About

80 percent of these participants were dually enrolled in JTPA and JOBS. A

project official explained that about 90 percent of the JOBS clients are

eligible for JTPA and are, consequently, enrolled in both programs. JTPA

participants must meet income eligibility guidelines established by federal

regulations as well as residency and age requirements. The criteria for JOBS

referrals give priority to people who have been on Aid to Families With

Dependent Children for 3 of the last 5 years; those under 24 years old

without a high school or general equivalency diploma or a work history;

and people whose youngest child is at least 16 years old.

About half of the 541 clients were new and the other half were carried

over from the previous year. Approximately 78 percent of Arapahoe

participants in 1994 were receiving public assistance, and the majority

were women (85 percent). Fifty-two percent of participants were white,

32 percent were African American, 11 percent were Hispanic, 2 percent

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix II 

Arapahoe County Employment and Training

Division, Aurora, Colorado

were Native American, and 3 percent were Asian American. A project

official estimated that more than half of Arapahoe’s clients need basic

skills remediation in order to benefit from occupational skills training.

Project Structure Arapahoe primarily functions as a training broker using a case

management model. Assessment (18 hours) is done on-site and workshops

(35 hours) include a job search skills workshop and a motivational

workshop. All prospective participants attend an orientation session to

learn about services available; Arapahoe staff emphasize that participation

in planned activities is required once a person chooses to enter the project

and is accepted. At an intermission, attendees are free to leave if they feel

the program is not right for them or if they are unwilling to make a

commitment to training and employment.

Case managers work with each participant to determine which training is

best and to identify and remove barriers to self-sufficiency. Support

services are tailored to individual needs and may include allowances for

transportation, child care, and clothing. Case managers may also refer

clients to other community organizations for support services. As a result

of preliminary assessments, such as a training readiness survey and

interviews, Arapahoe assigns a case manager to each participant and

enrolls participants in a 3-day assessment workshop. This workshop

includes such testing as the Career Assessment Inventory and the Holland

Self-Directed Search. After the client completes the assessment workshop

and an Individual Service Strategy/Employment Plan, case managers refer

participants for basic skills remediation or begin working with them on a

training plan.

Arapahoe contracts with area schools to provide basic and occupational

skills training. For example, Arapahoe’s two contractors for basic skills

training operate on a cost-reimbursable basis and also report on student

attendance and course progress. Clients study basic skills at their own

pace but are required to attend class for 20 hours each week. Arapahoe

also provides clients with vouchers for occupational skills training in areas

where there is the strongest likelihood of employment and with

contractors who have demonstrated performance in training and job

placement. The vouchers pay for training expenses—beyond basic skills

training—not to exceed $2,500 over a 24-month period.

Case managers are required to keep in contact with clients at a minimum

of twice monthly so that assessment is ongoing and clients have access to

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix II 

Arapahoe County Employment and Training

Division, Aurora, Colorado

referrals for counseling and support services, including tutoring. Career

counseling is a vital part of Arapahoe’s training model because clients

enter the program from diverse backgrounds and receive training in

differing fields of their choice at different area training facilities. If

participants are unsure about a career, case managers provide them with

some job shadowing experiences. Case managers encourage clients to

obtain some form of credential, such as an associate’s degree or a

technical certificate. Arapahoe staff also maintain links with local

employers to ensure the type of training provided will help clients achieve

self-sufficiency.

Project Outcomes Arapahoe measures its performance by enrollment statistics, job

placement rates, follow-up employment rates, and follow-up earnings. For

program year 1994, Arapahoe’s placement benchmark was about

48 percent, and 57 percent of all adults who left the program (either

JTPA-eligible or dually enrolled in JTPA and JOBS) found employment. About

69 percent of all participants who completed occupational training were

placed. These job placement rates are calculated on the basis of the

number of clients who obtain unsubsidized employment of 20 or more

hours a week when they leave the program. For all adults who left the

program in 1994, the average placement hourly wage was $7.09.

For more information on the Arapahoe County Employment and Training

Division, contact Elroy Kelzenberg, Deputy Director, 11059 East Bethany

Drive, Suite 201, Aurora, Colorado 80014, or call (303) 752-5820.

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix III 

Center for Employment Training, Reno,

Nevada

The Reno, Nevada, Center for Employment Training (CET), established in

1987, is a community-based, nonprofit organization providing job training

to disadvantaged adults. The Reno CET is one of over 30 centers

nationwide, with the corporate headquarters in San Jose, California. Its

mission is based on the philosophy of self-determination, and it seeks to

promote the development and education of low-income people by

providing them with marketable skills training and supportive services

that contribute to economic self-sufficiency. The corporate office provides

accounting and administrative support and sets broad policy for the

corporation as a whole.

Because the training offered in a particular skill expands and contracts

with the job market for that skill, CET maintains the flexibility to readily

increase training slots for skills in high demand or to phase out or

decrease training activity for skills whose demand is less than expected.

Each center is locally managed and chooses the skills training that it will

offer. The Reno CET focuses on three specific training areas that are in

demand in the local labor market: automated office skills, building

maintenance (carpentry, electrical, and plumbing), and shipping and

receiving.

Local CETs are funded through tuition charges to participants. During the

admissions process, CET staff evaluate applicants to determine whether

they are eligible for subsidized training under one of CET’s federal, state, or

local funding sources. Participants may receive financial assistance from

sources such as Pell grants, JTPA state funds, the JTPA Farm Worker

Program (Title IV), and grants from the city of Reno.

Participant

Characteristics

During program year 1994, the Reno CET trained 94 participants. A project

official said that most of CET’s participants are minority, functionally

illiterate, welfare recipients. The majority of CET clients in Reno are

Hispanic (80 percent), have reading and math skills below the eighth grade

level (80 percent), and have limited English proficiency (82 percent).

Participants range in age from 21 to 55 years. Roughly half are male. The

majority (60 percent) of participants have, at some time, been migrant

farmworkers.

Project Structure In addition to providing on-site training skills, the Reno CET also provides

remedial education, English language instruction, and citizenship classes.

Its curriculum includes job search techniques and employability and life

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix III 

Center for Employment Training, Reno,

Nevada

skills. All participants are ensured help in finding employment, but they

must commit to coming to training each day, on time, and demonstrate

that they can relate well to their instructors and fellow students. A staff

training team meets regularly to discuss participants’ progress in

developing job skills.

CET staff administer the Employability Competency System test to all

prospective participants to assess reading and math skills. Tests are

intended to identify participants’ strengths and weaknesses rather than to

disqualify participants. CET staff also review applications to assess an

applicant’s reading comprehension and spelling. They work with

participants to develop an individualized instruction and service plan that

clarifies participants’ vocational goals and remediation needs as well as

required supportive services. In addition, staff help participants gain

access to local community-based organizations for social services that

help overcome potential barriers to training and employment.

CET teaches basic and vocational skills simultaneously. For example,

participants in the building maintenance program learn math in the

context of rulers and measurement. Training, which simulates the work

environment with industry standards, is organized into different levels of

competency. Participants must pass a test for each level before

progressing to the next. Because the competency levels are generally

independent and self-paced, participants may begin training at almost any

time. Depending on an individual’s skill choice, needs, and abilities,

training can generally be completed in about 6 months.

Good work habits—such as punctuality, attendance, reliability, and job

responsibility—are emphasized throughout training. Participants are not

referred to a job unless they have the proper habits and attitudes to ensure

success in their work setting. CET’s job developer gives participants

employment assistance and advises them on curriculum choices, drawing

on knowledge of what prospective employers expect from CET graduates.

The job developer also teaches job search techniques and instructs

participants on how to set goals, complete job applications, develop

resumes, list references, and interview for employment. In addition, the

job developer periodically follows up on participants for a period of 1

month to 2 years after program completion. CET offers lifetime placement

assistance unless the individual has consistently quit jobs or had an

unacceptable attendance record.

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix III 

Center for Employment Training, Reno,

Nevada

Project Outcomes The ultimate CET goal for each participant is permanent, unsubsidized job

placement with good benefits. The Reno CET goal is to place 90 percent of

graduates in full-time, career-level employment. For program year 1994,

the placement rate was 92 percent for those who finished training.

Graduates who obtain any full-time job are considered successful

placements even when the job does not require the skill in which the

graduates were trained.

For more information on the Center for Employment Training in Reno,

contact Marcel Schaerer, Division Director, 520 Evans Avenue, Reno,

Nevada 89512, or call (702) 348-8668.

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix IV 

Encore!, Port Charlotte, Florida

Encore! prepares single parents, displaced homemakers, and single

pregnant women for high-wage occupations in order to help them become

self-sufficient. This project, started in 1986, serves many people who

would otherwise be dependent on welfare or employed in low-wage jobs.

The Charlotte Vocational Technical Center (Vo-Tech) administers Encore!

Vo-Tech’s mission is to offer quality vocational education to Charlotte

County residents and to help students obtain gainful employment.

Together, Encore! and Vo-Tech seek to motivate participants to reach their

highest potential by removing barriers and preparing participants for the

competitive world of work.

A federal grant under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied

Technology Education Act of 1990 provides Encore! funds for child care,

transportation, tuition, books, and uniforms for qualified students training

for high-wage, nontraditional occupations, such as women studying auto

technology. Community organizations provide scholarships to support

students for training not covered by this federal grant, and participants

may apply for other financial assistance, such as Pell grants. Vo-Tech

provides Encore! facilities (a portable building in which the program is

housed), utilities, and supplies. While the Perkins grant covers salary and

staff development costs for the project coordinator, Vo-Tech provides the

project a part-time work-study student aide as well as the expertise of

Vo-Tech faculty and staff.

The local community also supports Encore! The Charlotte County Medical

Society Alliance has “adopted” Encore! and raises money for the project

through such functions as dinners and golf tournaments. Community

members also donate clothing suitable for school, job interviews, or the

work place, which is distributed to participants at no charge through

Carol’s Closet, located within the Encore! project. The Charlotte County

Habitat for Humanity program pays particular attention to the housing

needs of Encore! participants. Additionally, the Charlotte County Board of

Women Realtors’ nonprofit DREAM HOUSE program is designed to help

Encore! participants achieve home ownership by helping them renovate

and purchase older homes.

Participant

Characteristics

Encore! participants are generally economically disadvantaged, lack

marketable job skills, have low self-esteem, and have few employability

skills. Because Encore! serves single parents, displaced homemakers, and

single pregnant women, most participants are female. In the 1993-94

school year, 93 percent of the 194 Encore! participants enrolled at Vo-Tech

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix IV 

Encore!, Port Charlotte, Florida

were female. The majority of participants (84 percent) were white. Most

participants—93 percent—had either a high school or general equivalency

diploma. Eighty-six percent had children under the age of 18.

Project Structure Encore!’s primary components are a 6-week prevocational workshop (48

hours) and a year-round support system for participants during their

vocational training. The workshop, which is held twice a year, includes

assessment, career exploration, self-esteem building, goal setting, and

budgeting; it is intended to prepare participants for skills training so that

they can make the commitment needed to succeed in training and

employment. The Encore! project coordinator works with participants to

identify and address any barriers that may impede their skills training and

job placement.

Encore! participants receive vocational assessment and counseling from

both the project coordinator and Vo-Tech staff. On the basis of this

assessment, participants develop an Individualized Career Plan and may

work to improve their basic skills through Vo-Tech’s self-paced remedial

program or begin one of the certificate programs Vo-Tech offers. Most

Encore! participants enter skills training at Vo-Tech and maintain regular

contact with the project coordinator. Vo-Tech offers a wide range of

programs, including business (general office, clerical, secretarial,

accounting, and data); construction (air/heat/refrigeration, drafting,

electrical, and carpentry); health (dental assisting, patient care assisting,

and practical nursing); and service (auto technology, child care,

cosmetology, culinary arts, electronics, nail technology, and ornamental

horticulture). Each program has a craft advisory board linking the needs

of the local labor market to the program curriculum.

For participants enrolled at Vo-Tech, the Encore! project coordinator

monitors progress through a system of employability skills points.

Participants lose points for absenteeism, tardiness, and other negative

behavior. When a participant’s points near a designated threshold level,

the project coordinator provides supportive counseling to the participant.

Vo-Tech also requires each student to attend employability skills

workshops that address job search skills, resume writing, interview

strategies, and getting along on the job. Other workshops, which students

may attend voluntarily, address time management, stress management,

maintaining a professional image, group dynamics, and the changing world

of work.

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix IV 

Encore!, Port Charlotte, Florida

The major priority of Encore! and Vo-Tech is to help all participants obtain

gainful employment. Vo-Tech emphasizes employability skills, such as

job-seeking and job-keeping strategies, to foster this goal. Encore!

participants also participate in videotaped mock interviews and obtain

help in preparing a professional resume. Encore! encourages participants

to register with Job Service of Florida, which has stationed a job specialist

at Vo-Tech. Vo-Tech’s instructional program, which is competency-based,

has a strong reputation with area employers; consequently, this reputation

also helps Encore! participants obtain employment.

Vo-Tech conducts job placement follow-up with graduates and

nongraduates in accordance with strict guidelines from the Florida

Department of Education. The survey is conducted through a statewide

computer search, mail, and telephone inquiry. Data are assembled by

program area, bound together, and made available to faculty for analysis.

Through Vo-Tech, the Encore! project coordinator also contacts

participants at 1- and 2-year intervals. The project coordinator said that

while most participants are generally still employed when contacted, they

may have moved on to another job.

Project Outcomes About 99 percent of all Encore! participants complete their vocational

training at Vo-Tech. While Encore! does not track the job placement

performance of its participants separately, for the 1993-94 school year, the

Vo-Tech campuswide placement rate was 95 percent. Vo-Tech defines

successful placements as obtaining a job, entering military service, or

continuing schooling.

For more information on Encore!, contact Carol Watters, Program

Coordinator, 18300 Toledo Blade Boulevard, Port Charlotte, Florida 33948,

or call (941) 629-6819.

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix V 

Focus: HOPE, Detroit, Michigan

Focus: HOPE, founded in 1968, is a metropolitan Detroit civil and human

rights organization established to resolve the effects of discrimination and

build an integrated society. It serves the community through several

programs, including its machinist training programs, an on-site Center for

Children, Food for Seniors, and a Food Prescription Program (a

commodity supplemental food program operating through the U.S.

Department of Agriculture). Focus: HOPE also provides employment

opportunities at its incorporated, for-profit companies, which have been

developed as a part of the Focus: HOPE network.

The Focus: HOPE complex is spread across 30 acres and 12 separate

buildings. In addition to a paid staff of about 750, the network has a roster

of about 46,000 volunteers; about a fourth of these volunteers provide

services during any given week. The organization relies on individual

donations and contributions from corporations, foundations, and trust

funds. It also receives grants from the Departments of Labor, Defense, and

Commerce, as well as surplus machinery used in training from the federal

and state governments. In 1994, the primary funding source for the

Machinist Training Institute (MTI) was state economic development/job

training funds. Participants may receive needs-based grants to cover

tuition from a variety of sources, including Pell grants and JTPA, the city of

Detroit, and machinist trade associations.

Since opening in 1981, Focus: HOPE’s MTI has prepared participants for

careers in manufacturing. Its training effort is intended to break down

discrimination in machinist trades and high-tech manufacturing industries,

and to provide disadvantaged individuals with marketable skills. MTI,

qualified as an institution of higher education, simulates the work place;

its curriculum integrates academics and hands-on experience. In addition

to MTI, Focus: HOPE has two other levels of training: FAST TRACK and the

Center for Advanced Technologies (CAT). FAST TRACK prepares

participants for MTI, and MTI graduates may move on to the CAT program.

CAT, a fairly new program, will have its first graduates in May 1996. These

three levels of programming could, in theory, support a participant from

an eighth-grade skills level to a master’s degree in manufacturing

engineering.

Participant

Characteristics

Focus: HOPE’s training programs serve inner-city adults who want to

participate and have the basic skills required to succeed in machinist

training. During the 1993-94 program year, approximately 63 percent of the

participants in FAST TRACK were male and 92 percent were African

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix V 

Focus: HOPE, Detroit, Michigan

American; their ages ranged from 17 to 23. Participants in MTI were also

primarily African American males, but were generally older (26 or 27 years

old). Project officials noted that many MTI participants have a history of

low-skill, low-wage jobs, often in the fast food industry; others are young

adults just entering the labor market with no work history. Because CAT

participants have attended MTI, their characteristics are similar to those of

MTI participants.

Project Structure Focus: HOPE’s training programs emphasize development of

manufacturing-related skills. Depending on an applicant’s skill level, an

applicant may be placed in one of Focus: HOPE’s three progressive

training levels: FAST TRACK, MTI, or CAT. These different levels allow

participants to experience machining, become familiar with the

expectations of the program, and decide whether they are willing to make

a commitment to training. The different levels of training also permit

Focus: HOPE staff to assess participants’ potential for success in more

advanced on-site training. At the completion of each level, Focus: HOPE’s

placement personnel actively help participants through the job search

process. For example, MTI job development staff visit machine shops to

discover job openings, discuss employer skills needs, and obtain feedback

on graduate performance. Prospective FAST TRACK and MTI participants

are assessed using the Test of Adult Basic Education and the Bennett

Mechanical Comprehension Test. Applicants must also pass a physical

examination, including a drug screen. The admission process also includes

interviews with financial aid personnel and appropriate program

managers. These interviews serve to assess applicants’ motivation and

likelihood of sustaining a full-time learning experience. Barriers to

successful training are also addressed. If the applicant is accepted for

training, supportive services, including academic, personal, and financial

aid counseling, are available. Additionally, staff refer participants to other

Focus: HOPE services or other community resources as needed.

FAST TRACK, which begins a new class every 2 weeks, was initiated in

1989 because Focus: HOPE had difficulty recruiting participants with

adequate basic skills for machinist training. FAST TRACK provides

instruction in math, reading, and computer literacy and addresses the

general readiness of high school graduates for meaningful employment

and postsecondary education. FAST TRACK participants must have basic

skills at the eighth-grade level; over an intensive 7-week course, they may

improve basic skills to a 9th- or 10th-grade level.

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix V 

Focus: HOPE, Detroit, Michigan

FAST TRACK was designed not only to boost participants’ academic skills

but also to improve employability skills. Participants are rated in four

categories—attendance, cooperation, interpersonal skills, and work

performance. While FAST TRACK graduates are assured entry into the

first level of MTI, project officials told us that graduates are often able to

obtain employment simply because of improved basic and employability

skills. On average, two-thirds who enter FAST TRACK complete its

curriculum.

MTI participants must have at least a 9th-grade reading level and a

10th-grade math level. Participants spend about half their time in the

classroom and the other half on the shop floor. MTI is divided into three

tiers. First, a 5-week (176 hours) “vestibule” program provides instruction

in communication and technical skills. An additional 26-week basic

machining program allows participants to work from blueprints to

produce a finished product. Finally, a 26-week advanced machining

program provides selected participants more instruction. These

participants also learn by working for pay on actual production contracts.

Focus: HOPE’s latest training effort, CAT, aims to produce engineers who

can operate more effectively in an agile manufacturing environment and

integrates hands-on training with academic studies in a production setting.

CAT is a national demonstration project, and its curriculum was developed

in conjunction with educational and industry partners. Currently, CAT’s

participants are selected from MTI’s advanced machining graduates. In CAT,

one of the partner universities can confer an associate’s degree after 3

years, a bachelor’s degree after 4-1/2 years, and a master’s degree after 6

years.

Project Outcomes Focus: HOPE defines successful participants as those who obtain and hold

steady employment that includes benefits. For the 1993-94 year, of 185

participants in MTI, 139 (75 percent) completed the program. Of these

graduates, 137 (99 percent) were placed in employment at an average

hourly wage of $9.50.

For more information on Focus: HOPE, contact Kenneth Kudek, Assistant

Director, 1355 Oakman Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48238, or call

(313) 494-4170.

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix VI 

STRIVE Central, New York City

STRIVE—the acronym for Support and Training Results in Valuable

Employment—provides participants tools to navigate the current job

market. This employment training and placement project, started in 1985,

is for inner-city adults in New York City who have experienced difficulty

securing and maintaining employment. STRIVE staff, many of whom have

lived the client experience and are project graduates themselves, work to

prepare, train, place, and support participants in obtaining unsubsidized

entry-level jobs.

STRIVE Central is one of 10 community-based organizations in New York’s

STRIVE Employment Group; the STRIVE model has also been replicated in

Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Boston. The STRIVE network is primarily privately

funded, predominately through a grant from the Clark Foundation that

requires a two-for-one dollar match from other sources, such as local

employers. Services are free to both employers and participants, and

STRIVE officials noted that 90 percent of STRIVE’s resources are allocated to

direct services. STRIVE Central, the initial STRIVE site, is located in the

basement of an inner-city housing project in East Harlem and is readily

accessible to members of that community; STRIVE Central has also opened

a satellite location in West Harlem.

STRIVE was founded in response to chronicly high unemployment rates in

East Harlem, the Greater Harlem community, and other disenfranchised

neighborhoods of New York City. Social problems including

homelessness, substance abuse, crime, and teen pregnancies affect these

communities. STRIVE’s founders believed gainful employment is the most

critical element to individuals and families hoping to obtain

self-sufficiency and empowerment. STRIVE’s mission is to demonstrate the

impact attitudinal training and postplacement support have on the

long-term employment of inner-city adults.

Participant

Characteristics

STRIVE serves inner-city adults, aged 18 to 40, who are unemployed and

want to work. The project targets services to people whose difficulty

obtaining employment stems primarily from poor attitudes and

inappropriate behaviors. While STRIVE has no income eligibility

requirements, it often serves the most needy—those on public assistance,

single parents, former substance abusers, ex-offenders, victims of abuse,

and high school dropouts. STRIVE encourages participants to shed the

victim mentality, become self-sufficient, and acquire a solid work ethic.

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix VI 

STRIVE Central, New York City

In 1994, STRIVE Central trained 415 individuals. During 1994, STRIVE served

similar numbers of women (208) and men (207); however, project officials

stated this was an aberration because STRIVE has historically served more

women than men. Most participants were African American (71 percent),

and 16 percent were Hispanic. Thirty-four percent of participants received

public assistance and 33 percent were single parents. Most of the 1994

participants were high school graduates (64 percent) or had obtained a

general equivalency diploma (18 percent); the rest were high school

dropouts.

Project Structure STRIVE’s training focuses on the behaviors needed for successful

employment—such as punctuality, the spirit of cooperation, and the ability

to take constructive criticism, and the attitudes that sometimes impede

these behaviors—rather than skills such as typing, word processing, and

data entry. STRIVE prepares participants for the work place through a strict,

demanding 3-week workshop (120 hours) that emphasizes attitudinal

training. Each workshop begins with a “group interaction” session for

prospective participants. This 3-hour orientation session helps applicants

determine whether they are willing to undergo STRIVE’s training and also

allows trainers an opportunity to assess the attitudes and abilities of

applicants. For example, trainers call attention to late arrivals by

questioning the reasons for lateness before the whole group. This could

prove to be embarrassing for tardy applicants—their ability to stay in the

program depends on handling that embarrassment in a professional

manner.

Because of the attitudinal issues discussed, and the “no nonsense” manner

in which the issues are dealt with, some of the applicants decide that

STRIVE is not for them and do not return for the training workshop.

Consequently, while STRIVE generally accepts anyone interested in the

program, participants screen themselves out as a result of the orientation

session; participants may also leave at any time during the 3-week

workshop, and some are asked to leave if STRIVE staff believe that they are

not sufficiently committed to the program or willing to make changes in

their lives.

During the intake and application process, STRIVE staff may also make

referrals on the basis of their identification of participants’ barriers to

successful employment. For example, applicants may be referred to STRIVE

partners that serve teens only or referred directly to community services

for such problems as mental health needs, substance abuse, or day care

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix VI 

STRIVE Central, New York City

needs. If the applicant does not seem to have attitude problems but simply

needs assistance in finding employment, the applicant may be referred

directly to STRIVE’s job developers, who know about employment

opportunities through regular contact with area employers.

In addition to attitudinal training, STRIVE emphasizes job placement and

postplacement support. STRIVE’s job development staff help participants

find employment that offers benefits, skills development, and

opportunities for advancement; however, all graduates must successfully

apply for and obtain their own positions. No job is viewed as “dead end,”

because participants often need jobs that can provide the beginning of a

work history as well as a pathway for advancement. After placement,

STRIVE staff continue to work with clients to upgrade their employment.

STRIVE provides a long-term commitment to program graduates because

graduates often lack such support. Postplacement support includes

assistance with personal and work problems in addition to future

education and career planning. Project staff make individual contacts with

graduates on a quarterly basis for 2 years as well as regular contacts with

employers who hire graduates in order to obtain feedback on training

requirements and/or offer further training assistance. Moreover, STRIVE

graduates can request lifetime services.

Project Outcomes STRIVE defines successful participants as those who obtain and hold steady

employment. STRIVE’s operational standards are to place, in unsubsidized

employment, at least 80 percent of the individuals who complete the

intensive 3-week training, and for 75 to 80 percent of those placed to retain

employment for at least 2 years. From May 1985 through December 1994,

the East Harlem site has helped 2,424 individuals secure employment.

According to project officials, nearly 80 percent of those individuals have

maintained employment. In 1994, STRIVE Central trained 415 persons, 318

(77 percent) of whom were placed.

For more information on STRIVE, contact Lorenzo Harrison, Deputy

Director, 1820 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10029, or call

(212) 360-1100.

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix VII 

The Private Industry Council, Portland,

Oregon

The Private Industry Council (TPIC) is a private, nonprofit organization

providing employment and training services to low-income residents in

Portland, Oregon, as well as Washington and Multnomah Counties. The

federal government provides 85 percent of TPIC’s funding through JTPA. TPIC

is also a subcontractor for the JOBS program and dually enrolls participants

in both JTPA and JOBS. TPIC’s mission is to promote individual

self-sufficiency and a skilled workforce by eliminating barriers to

productive employment.

TPIC delivers most services for disadvantaged adults from three

neighborhood service centers—Northeast Employment and Training

Center, Southeast Employment and Training Center, and East County

Employment and Training Center. These centers, through case

management, provide comprehensive services that remove barriers to

long-term employment and self-sufficiency. According to TPIC officials, the

three centers target certain populations: The Northeast Center targets

African American males and welfare recipients, the Southeast Center

targets the homeless population and refugees, and the East County Center

primarily serves a Hispanic population and has bilingual English- and

Spanish-speaking staff. TPIC also administers a program that serves older

workers, the Tri-County Employment and Training Program, as well as

programs serving youth.

TPIC’s coordinated approach to case management is intended to provide

clients with the basic and vocational skills necessary to obtain and keep

employment. TPIC’s training system links all entities involved in either

preparing adults for the workforce or providing supplemental services that

are necessary for a person to become self-sufficient. These entities include

businesses, government agencies, community colleges and school

districts, and community-based organizations.

Participant

Characteristics

TPIC targets the JTPA-eligible population—people with barriers to

employment such as ex-offenders, the long-term unemployed, and high

school dropouts. TPIC officials explained that these harder-to-serve clients

generally have multiple barriers to employment and are more expensive to

train. During program year 1994, TPIC’s JTPA program for disadvantaged

adults primarily served women (63 percent). Sixty-one percent of

participants were white, 17 percent were African American, 16 percent

were Hispanic, 3 percent were Native American, and 3 percent were Asian

American. Twenty-nine percent of participants were welfare recipients

and 21 percent were high school dropouts.

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix VII 

The Private Industry Council, Portland,

Oregon

Project Structure TPIC provides case management and on-site assessment (36 hours) and

links clients with vocational training opportunities. The three

neighborhood centers follow a similar approach to program delivery. Each

holds a mandatory orientation session, generally twice a month, during

which case managers explain the services provided, the types of training

available, and the links to training. At the orientation, TPIC staff explain

that they maintain a businesslike environment that demands qualities such

as timeliness and drug-free participation. Case managers work with

individuals to assess their ability to benefit from services. Clients must

commit to standards such as attending class every scheduled day, arriving

on time, following basic rules for good grooming, and abiding by the

guidelines for smoking outside the building. Clients subsequently screen

themselves out of training if they are not willing to abide by these

standards. When appropriate, case managers make referrals to other

community resources for assistance with barriers to employment.

Through the assessment process, which takes 3 weeks, staff help

participants examine their capabilities, needs, and vocational potential.

This objective assessment includes a review of a participant’s family

situation, interests, and aptitudes. Additionally, assessment includes

employability skills and contains a basic work place curriculum that

focuses on skills such as problem solving and conflict resolution. Clients

are also required to develop a self-sufficiency plan and a specific job goal.

They must research labor market information and conduct interviews to

gather information on careers in which they are interested. The Southeast

Center, for example, requires two interviews: one with a person who does

the job the participant is interested in and another with a school that

provides training for that job.

Following assessment, case managers assist participants by connecting

them to training that includes English as a Second Language, basic skills,

vocational skills, on-the-job training, competency training, work

experience, and internships. None of the TPIC sites offers on-site basic

skills or occupational skills training. A project official estimated that more

than half of TPIC participants need some basic skills training, which may be

obtained at a local community college or elsewhere in the community at

no cost, before they can benefit from occupational skills training.

For skills training, TPIC refers participants to its contracted skills training

and provides tuition assistance—generally no more than $2,500 for each

participant. A project official noted that clients often come to TPIC with an

idea of what skills they want; during the assessment process, the case

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix VII 

The Private Industry Council, Portland,

Oregon

manager and job developer work with these desires but also steer clients

to where opportunities may be or try to broaden their scope. TPIC

participants have access to all job opportunities listed through the state

employment office, and job developers also help participants find

employment. Participants may be involved in a “job club,” which further

motivates them and provides job search assistance. TPIC also provides

retention services—following up with both the participants and the

employers.

Project Outcomes TPIC defines successful participants as those who obtain self-sufficiency;

for this, TPIC has set a specific, minimum starting wage goal of $7 an hour.

All TPIC programs rely on outcome-based measures to determine program

performance. Outcomes for the adult training employment programs

include the number of clients served and placement, retention, and

starting salary rates. During the 1994 program year, TPIC’s JTPA program for

disadvantaged adults served 90 percent of the participants it had planned

to serve—a total of 682. Of the 355 participants who left during the

program year, about 68 percent found employment; however, of those

completing occupational skills training, about 77 percent were placed.

For more information on The Private Industry Council, contact Maureen

Thompson, Vice President, 720 South West Washington, Suite 250,

Portland, Oregon 97205, or call (503) 241-4600.

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Appendix IX 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Sigurd R. Nilsen, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7003

Sarah L. Glavin, Senior Economist, (202) 512-7180

Denise D. Hunter, Evaluator-in-Charge, (617) 565-7536

Betty S. Clark, Senior Evaluator, (617) 565-7524

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, the following individuals made

important contributions to this report: Catherine Baltzell, Karen Barry,

Dianne Murphy Blank, Gary Galazin, Diana Gilman, Benjamin Jordan,

Barbara Moroski-Browne, Cynthia Neal, James Owcarzak, Lynda Racey,

Robert Rogers, Doreen Swift, and Kathleen Ward.

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Bibliography

Abt Associates, Inc., Evaluation of the Food Stamp Employment Program.

Bethesda, Md.: Abt Associates, Inc., June 1990.

Berger, Mark C., and Dan A. Black. “Child Care Subsidies, Quality of Care,

and the Labor Supply of Low-Income, Singe Mothers.” Review of

Economics and Statistics, 74(4) (Nov. 1992), pp. 635-42.

Burghardt, John, and Anne Gordon. More Jobs and Higher Pay: How an

Integrated Program Compares With Traditional Programs. New York:

Rockefeller Foundation, 1990.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for

Children and Families. Summary of Final Evaluation Findings From FY

1989, Demonstration Partnership Program Projects Monograph Series

100-89, Case Management Family Intervention Models. Washington, D.C.:

1992.

U.S. Department of Labor. What’s Working (and What’s Not), A Summary

of Research on the Economic Impact of Employment and Training

Programs. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1995.

_____. Reemployment Services: A Review of Their Effectiveness.

Washington, D.C.: 1994.

_____. Improving the Quality of Training Under JTPA. Research and

Evaluation Report Series 91-A. Washington, D.C.: 1991.

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. What

Works for Dislocated Workers. Washington, D.C.: 1991.

U.S. Department of Labor, Secretary’s Commission on Achieving

Necessary Skills. What Work Requires of Schools. Washington, D.C.: 1991.

Dickinson, Katherine P., and others. JTPA Best Practices in Assessment,

Case Management, and Providing Appropriate Services. Menlo Park, Calif.:

SRI International and Social Policy Research Associates, June 1994.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Best Practices Methodology: A New

Approach for Improving Government Operations. GAO/NSIAD-95-154, May 1,

1995.

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Bibliography

_____. Child Care: Child Care Subsidies Increase Likelihood That

Low-Income Mothers Will Work. GAO/HEHS-95-20, Dec. 30, 1994.

_____. Dislocated Workers: Exemplary Local Projects Under the Job

Training Partnership Act. GAO/HRD-87-70BR, Apr. 8, 1987.

_____. Job Corps: High Costs and Mixed Results Raise Questions About

Program’s Effectiveness. GAO/HEHS-95-180, June 30, 1995.

_____. Job Training Partnership Act: Actions Needed to Improve

Participant Support Services. GAO/HRD-92-124, June 12, 1992.

_____. Job Training Partnership Act: Long-Term Earnings and

Employment Outcomes. GAO/HEHS-96-40, Mar. 4, 1996.

_____. Job Training Partnership Act: Services and Outcomes for

Participants With Differing Needs. GAO/HRD-89-52, June 9, 1989.

_____. JOBS and JTPA: Tracking Spending, Outcomes, and Program

Performance. GAO/HEHS-94-177, July 15, 1994.

_____. Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed

to Reduce Costs, Streamline the Bureaucracy, and Improve Results.

GAO/T-HEHS-95-53, Jan. 10, 1995.

_____. Welfare to Work: Approaches That Help Teenage Mothers Complete

High School. GAO/HEHS/PEMD-95-202, Sept. 29, 1995.

_____. Welfare to Work: Measuring Outcomes for JOBS Participants.

GAO/HEHS-95-86, Apr. 17, 1995.

_____. Welfare to Work: Most AFDC Training Programs Not Emphasizing

Job Placement. GAO/HEHS-95-113, May 19, 1995.

_____. Welfare to Work: State Programs Have Tested Some of the

Proposed Reforms. GAO/PEMD-95-26, July 14, 1995.

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. Papers for Practitioners:

Improving the Productivity of JOBS Programs. New York: Manpower

Demonstration Research Corporation, 1993.

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Bibliography

_____. GAIN: Two-Year Impacts in Six Counties—California’s Greater

Avenues for Independence Program. New York: Manpower Demonstration

Research Corporation, May 1993.

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. International Trade and Worker

Dislocation: Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program.

Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Apr. 1993.

National Association of Counties. The Challenge of Quality: Participant

Selection, Recruitment and Assignment. JTPA Issues. Washington, D.C.:

National Association of Counties, 1990.

National Governors’ Association. Research Findings on the Effectiveness

of State Welfare-to-Work Programs. Washington, D.C.: National Governors’

Association, 1994.

North Carolina Department of Community Colleges, Planning and

Research Section. 1992 Critical Success Factors for the North Carolina

Community College System: Third Annual Report. Raleigh, N.C.: North

Carolina Department of Community Colleges, 1992.

Orfield, Gary, and Helene Slessarev. Job Training Under the New

Federalism, chapter 13. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.

Orr, Larry L., and others. The National JTPA Study: Impacts, Benefits, and

Costs of Title II-A. Bethesda, Md.: Abt Associates, Inc., Mar. 1994.

University of California, Berkeley, National Center for Research in

Vocational Education. Exemplary Programs Serving Special Populations.

Vols. I and II. Berkeley: University of California, 1992.

_____. Institutional-Level Factors and Excellence in Vocational Education:

A Review of the Literature. Berkeley: University of California, 1991.

Wardlow, George, and others. Institutional Factors Underlying Excellence

in Vocational Education. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, 1990.

Wardlow, George, and Gordon Swanson. Institutional-Level Factors and

Excellence in Vocational Education: A Review of the Literature. Berkeley:

National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of

California, 1991.

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Bibliography

Page 47 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
Related GAO Products

Job Training Partnership Act: Long-Term Earnings and Employment

Outcomes (GAO/HEHS-96-40, Mar. 4, 1996).

Job Corps: High Costs and Mixed Results Raise Questions About

Program’s Effectiveness (GAO/HEHS-95-180, June 30, 1995).

Welfare to Work: Most AFDC Training Programs Not Emphasizing Job

Placement (GAO/HEHS-95-113, May 19, 1995).

Welfare To Work: Measuring Outcomes for JOBS Participants

(GAO/HEHS-95-86, Apr. 17, 1995).

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to

Reduce Costs, Streamline the Bureaucracy, and Improve Results

(GAO/T-HEHS-95-53, Jan. 10, 1995).

Child Care: Child Care Subsidies Increase Likelihood That Low-Income

Mothers Will Work (GAO/HEHS-95-20, Dec. 30, 1994).

JOBS and JTPA: Tracking Spending, Outcomes, and Program Performance

(GAO/HEHS-94-177, July 15, 1994).

Job Training Partnership Act: Actions Needed to Improve Participant

Support Services (GAO/HRD-92-124, June 12, 1992).

Job Training Partnership Act: Services and Outcomes for Participants With

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

Dislocated Workers: Exemplary Local Projects Under the Job Training

Partnership Act (GAO/HRD-87-70BR, Apr. 8, 1987).

(205292) Page 48 GAO/HEHS-96-108 Employment Training Projects
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