United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

July 1996 JOB CORPS

Where Participants Are

Recruited, Trained, and

Placed in Jobs

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/HEHS-96-140

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-271947 

July 17, 1996

The Honorable William F. Goodling

Chairman, Committee on Economic

 and Educational Opportunities

House of Representatives

The Honorable Christopher Shays

Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources

 and Intergovernmental Relations

Committee on Government Reform

 and Oversight

House of Representatives

Job Corps is a national employment training program administered by the

Department of Labor that provides severely disadvantaged youth with a

comprehensive array of services, generally in a residential setting. Labor

receives about $1 billion a year to serve about 66,000 Job Corps

participants, and, through nine regional offices,1

 operates 112 Job Corps

centers that it has established throughout the nation—including centers in

46 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.2

 Job Corps is one of

about 163 programs or funding streams that make up the nation’s federally

funded workforce development system. The Congress is now deciding

how best to streamline this fragmented system and how Job Corps would

best operate within a reformed workforce development structure.3

 In that

regard, you asked us to provide information on whether Job Corps

participants are assigned to the closest center. Specifically, you asked for

information on (1) the locations of Job Corps centers and their capacity,

by state; (2) the extent to which participants are trained and placed in jobs

in the state in which they reside; and (3) the reasons why participants may

be sent to centers outside their state of residence.

In carrying out our work, we performed analyses of the Job Corps

program’s Student Pay, Allotment and Management Information System

1

Although Labor operates 10 regional offices, the Job Corps program in regions VII and VIII is overseen

by one regional director.

2

Hereafter, the use of the term “states” will refer, collectively, to the states plus the District of

Columbia and Puerto Rico. States without Job Corps centers in 1995 included Delaware, New

Hampshire, Rhode Island, Wyoming, and Connecticut. Connecticut opened a center in May 1996.

3

See 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-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

(SPAMIS) data for program years4 1993 and 1994 (the most current data

available). This data system contains comprehensive information on each

Job Corps participant who left the program during program years 1993 and

1994, including personal and demographic data; the center to which they

were assigned and the courses they attended; the date when they left the

program; and the job they obtained, if any. Our analyses included a

comparison of the program’s in-state capacity with in-state demand for

services, using the number of program participants as a measure of

demand. We also conducted a telephone survey with the directors from

the program’s nine regional offices and several outreach/screening

contractors to obtain information on the factors influencing decisions to

assign participants to centers outside the participants’ state of residence.

We did our work between October 1995 and May 1996 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards. (App. I contains a

more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.)

Results in Brief While 46 states have at least one center, Job Corps program capacity

differs among the states because the number and size of Job Corps centers

vary from state to state. For example, 19 states have one Job Corps center

whereas 4 states have six or more centers. Furthermore, Job Corps

program capacity in a state is not related to the number of state residents

enrolled in Job Corps, and participants are not necessarily trained or

assigned to a center in their home state.

Overall, we found that Job Corps had the capacity to serve 81 percent of

program participants in their home states—52,000 of 64,000 participants

from states with Job Corps centers could have been assigned to a center in

their state of residence. About 59 percent of participants were assigned to

centers in their home state;5

 the remaining participants were sent to

centers outside their home state and traveled an average of over 4 times as

far as they would have if they had been assigned to the closest center in

their state of residence. Regardless of where they were trained, however,

about 83 percent of those participants who got jobs were employed in

their home state.

4

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

designated by the year in which they start; thus, program year 1994 began July 1, 1994, and ended June

30, 1995.

5

All analyses throughout the report are based on program year 1994 data. We performed the same

analyses using program year 1993 data and obtained consistent results. See appendix II for information

on program years 1993 and 1994.

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

Program officials told us that the predominant reasons participants were

sent out of state were to (1) fully use Job Corps centers and (2) satisfy

participants’ preference to be assigned to a specific center. Officials also

cited participants’ preference for a specific vocational offering as

important. While we were unable to determine if specific vocational

training slots were available at the closest center when participants were

enrolled, our analysis showed that over two-thirds of the participants

assigned to centers in other states were either enrolled in vocational

training courses commonly offered or never enrolled in vocational training

at all.

Job Corps had sufficient capacity in 27 of the states to serve essentially all

participants from those states in program year 1994. However, the

program lacked the capacity to serve about 11,000 participants residing in

20 other states and another 1,400 participants residing in the 5 states that

did not have a Job Corps center in program year 1994. Plans to add nine

centers in the next 2 years and the 1996 opening of the Connecticut center

are expected to partially address this shortfall, adding space for about

4,000 participants in those states with insufficient capacity and for about

300 in Connecticut.

Background Job Corps was established as a national employment and training program

in 1964 to provide severely disadvantaged youth with a wide range of

services, including basic/remedial education, vocational training, and

social skills instruction, usually at residential facilities. It remains one of

the few federally run programs, unlike many other employment training

programs6

 that are federally funded but are operated by state or local

governments. Job Corps centers are operated by public or private

organizations under contract with Labor.

Recent legislative proposals to consolidate much of the nation’s job

training system into block grants to the states has produced debate on the

relationship between Job Corps and the states, including whether

responsibility for Job Corps should be delegated to the states. A 1995

Senate-passed bill retained Job Corps as a separate federally administered

program;7

 a 1995 House-passed bill was silent about the Job Corps’ future

6

Examples of such programs include titles IIB and IIC youth training programs under the Job Training

Partnership Act (P.L. 97-300), which, although established as federal programs, are run by state and

local agencies.

7

The Workforce Development Act of 1995 (S. 143, 104th Cong., 1st sess.).

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

as a separate entity.8 A conference committee is currently attempting to

resolve the differences between the two bills. The Senate bill proposes

several changes to better integrate Job Corps with state and local

workforce development initiatives, including requiring center operators to

submit operating plans to Labor, through their state governors; requiring

center operators to give nearby communities advance notice of any center

changes that could affect them; and permitting the governor to

recommend individuals to serve on panels to select center operators.

Labor officials stated that the program is already playing a proactive role

in ensuring that the National Job Corps program works more closely with

state and local employment, education, and training programs.

According to Job Corps officials, the program has received funding to

open nine additional centers—five in program year 1996 and four in

program year 1997—all of which will be located in states with existing

centers.

Job Corps’ nine regional directors are responsible for the day-to-day

administration of the program at the centers located within their

geographic boundaries. Included among their responsibilities are the

recruitment of youth for program participation and the assignment of

enrollees to one of the program centers. Recruitment is typically carried

out by private contractors, the centers, or state employment services

under contract with the regional directors. The Job Corps legislation

provides some broad guidance with respect to assigning enrollees to

centers. It states that participants are to be assigned to the center closest

to their residence, except for good cause. Exceptions can include avoiding

undue delay in assigning participants to a center, meeting educational or

training needs, or ensuring efficiency and economy in the operation of the

program.

The program currently enrolls participants aged 16 to 24 who are severely

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

disruptive environment. Our June 1995 report9

 contained an analysis of

characteristics of those terminating from Job Corps in program year 1993

showing that over two-thirds of the program’s participants faced multiple

barriers to employment.10 Enrollments are voluntary, and training

8

The Workforce Development Act of 1995 (H.R. 1617, 104th Cong., 1st sess.).

9

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

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

10The barriers included being a school dropout, being deficient in basic skills (reading and/or math

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

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

programs are open entry, open exit, and self-paced, allowing participants

to enroll throughout the year and to progress at their own pace. On

average, participants spend about 8 months in the program but can stay up

to 2 years.

In addition to basic education and vocational training courses, each of the

centers provides participants with a range of services including

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

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

areas, including business occupations, automotive repair, construction

trades, and health occupations. These courses are taught by center staff,

private contractors, or instructors provided under contracts with national

labor and business organizations. In addition, Job Corps offers, at a limited

number of centers, advanced training in various occupations including

food service, clerical, and construction trades. This training is designed to

provide additional instruction to participants from centers across the

nation who have demonstrated the ability to perform at a higher skill level.

One feature that makes Job Corps different from other youth training

programs is its residential component.11 About 90 percent of the

participants enrolled each year live at the centers, allowing services to be

provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The premise for boarding

participants is that most come from a disruptive environment and,

therefore, can benefit from receiving education and training in a new

setting where a variety of support services are available around the clock.

Participation in Job Corps can lead to placement in a job or enrollment in

further training or education. It can also lead to educational achievements

such as earning a high school diploma and gaining reading or math skills.

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

about 64 percent of those leaving the program get jobs.

Number and Size of

Job Corps Centers

Determine State

Capacity

Job Corps program capacity differs widely among the states because the

number of centers in each state differs, and the size of individual centers

within the states varies substantially. Job Corps centers are located in 46

states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico (see fig. 1). Among

states with centers, the number ranges from one center in each of 19

states; to six centers each in California, Kentucky, and Oregon; to seven in

New York State.

11See Job Corps: Comparison of Federal Program With State Youth Training Initiatives

(GAO/HEHS-96-92, Mar. 28, 1996).

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

Figure 1: Current and Planned Distribution of Job Corps Centers by Labor Regions and by States

Job Corps Centers

New Job Corps Centers to Be Established in Program Years 1996 and 1997

Region

I

Region

II

Region

III

Region

IV Region

VI

Region

VII

Region

VIII

Region

IX

Region

X

Region

V

Note: App. III lists the states in each region.

In-state capacity differs according to the number of centers in each state,

the size of individual centers, and the average time participants spend in

the program. For example, Kentucky’s centers can serve 6,373 participants

annually, nearly double the number that can be served by centers in either

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

California (3,477) or New York (3,252); Idaho has only one center and a

capacity of about 200. (See app. IV for a listing of the capacity within each

state with a Job Corps center.) As shown in figure 2, Job Corps centers in

9 states had the capacity to serve over 2,000 Job Corps participants

annually, whereas centers in 10 states could serve fewer than 500

participants annually.

Figure 2: State Job Corps Program Capacity, Program Year 1994

100-499 500-999 1000-1499 1500-1999 2000+

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Number of Participants That Can Be Served Annually

Number of States

Job Corps

Participants Were

Assigned to

Out-of-State Centers

Nationwide, 41 percent of the approximately 64,000 program year 1994 Job

Corps participants (about 44 percent in program year 1993) who lived in

states with Job Corps centers were assigned to centers outside their home

state. Openings at centers located in their states of residence were often

filled by participants from other states. Those participants assigned out of

state travel greater distances than those who are assigned to an in-state

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

center. Yet, even when assigned out of state, participants tend to stay

within the Labor region in which they reside. Regardless of where they are

assigned, participants tend to be employed in their state of residence.

Extent of Out-of-State

Assignments Differed

Among States

Considerable variation existed among the states in the extent to which Job

Corps participants were assigned to out-of-state centers (see fig. 3). In

program year 1994, the majority of Job Corps participants from 15 states

were assigned to centers outside their home state. For example, more than

three-quarters of the Job Corps participants from Colorado, Illinois, South

Carolina, and Wisconsin were assigned to centers in states other than the

one in which they lived. On the other hand, less than a quarter of the

youths in 16 states were assigned to out-of-state Job Corps centers. For

example, less than 15 percent of the Job Corps participants from

Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York were assigned to centers

outside their home state. (App. V lists the states included in each of the

percentage groupings shown in fig. 3.)

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

Figure 3: State Residents Assigned to Out-of-State Centers, Program Year 1994

0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75%+

0

5

10

15

20

Percentage of Participants Assigned Out of State

Number of States

While substantial numbers of participants are assigned to out-of-state

centers, the vast majority of all participants are assigned to centers within

the Job Corps regions in which they reside. Nearly 95 percent of program

year 1994 participants (92 percent in program year 1993) were assigned to

a Job Corps center that was located in the same region as their residence.

In 7 of Labor’s 10 regions, over 90 percent of Job Corps program

participants were residents of the regions in which they were assigned,

and in the remaining 3 regions, over 80 percent were regional residents. A

portion of the remaining 5 percent who were transferred outside their

region were assigned under agreements between regional directors to

send participants to centers in other regions. For example, the director in

region II said that he has an agreement to send approximately 150 youths

to region I and 250 youths to region IV. The director in region IX assigns

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

400 to 600 youths to the Clearfield, Utah, center in region VIII and another

200 youths to region X.

Out-of-State Assignments

Are Distant

Job Corps participants assigned to centers outside their state of residence

were sent to centers that were, on average, over 4 times as distant as the

in-state center closest to a participant’s residence. For the approximately

26,000 youths leaving the program in program year 1994 who were

assigned to out-of-state Job Corps centers, we compared the distances

from their home to (1) the center to which they were assigned and (2) the

in-state center nearest their residence. In 92 percent of the cases where

participants were assigned out of state, there was an in-state Job Corps

center closer to the participant’s home. On average, participants assigned

to out-of-state centers traveled about 390 miles, whereas the closest

in-state center was about 90 miles from their residence. For example,

about 2,200 Florida residents were assigned to Job Corps centers in other

states, traveling on average about 640 miles to attend those centers. In

contrast, these participants would have traveled, on average, only about 70

miles had they been assigned to the nearest Florida center.

Residents Sent Out of State

While Nonresidents Are

Brought In

We noted that while residents in many states were being assigned to

out-of-state centers, a substantial number of nonresidents were being

brought in and enrolled at in-state centers. For example, in program year

1994, of the approximately 1,000 Arkansas residents in Job Corps, about

600 (or 60 percent) were assigned to out-of-state centers. Yet, about 600

nonresidents were brought in to centers in Arkansas from other states.

Similarly, in Georgia, 1,300 residents from that state were assigned to Job

Corps centers located elsewhere, whereas about 1,900 individuals residing

in other states were brought in to centers located in Georgia. Figure 4

shows states with large numbers (500 or more) of residents sent to

out-of-state centers while large numbers of nonresidents were brought

in-state. (App. VI provides, for each state, the number of nonresidents

brought in from other states, as well as the number of residents sent to

out-of-state centers, for program years 1994 and 1993.)

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

Figure 4: States With Large Numbers of Residents Sent Out of State and Nonresidents Brought Into State, Program Year

1994

AR GA MS OH PA TN TX WA

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

Number of Participants

Residents Sent Out of State

Nonresidents Brought in State

Proportion of Nonresidents

Varies Among Centers

Assigning participants to Job Corps centers outside their state of residence

resulted in wide variations in the number of nonresidents at individual Job

Corps centers nationwide. The majority of participants served at about

one-third of the centers were out-of-state residents.12 Overall, we found

that in 38 of the 11313 Job Corps centers operating in program year 1994,

50 percent or more of the participants resided outside the state in which

the center was located (see fig. 5). Fifteen centers had 75 percent or more

nonresidents enrolled during program year 1994, and the 9 centers with

the most nonresidents (85 percent or more) were located in Kentucky (6

centers), California (1), Utah (1), and West Virginia (1). Because program

12We excluded those Job Corps participants residing in states without Job Corps centers.

13This number includes centers in Tuskegee, Alabama, and Knoxville, Tennessee, that were

subsequently closed.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

capacity in Kentucky, Utah, and West Virginia exceeded in-state demand,

large numbers of nonresidents attended centers in these states. California,

on the other hand, had insufficient capacity. Nonetheless, the number of

nonresidents at the California center may have been high because it

provided advanced training for participants who previously had completed

some basic level of training at centers across the nation. Forty-seven

centers had less than 25 percent nonresidents enrolled, including 30

centers with less than 10 percent of their program participants coming

from out of state.

Figure 5: Percentage of Center Participants From Out of State, Program Year 1994

0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75%+

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percentage of Participants From Out of State

Number of Centers

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

Participants Employed in

State of Residence

Regardless of where Job Corps participants were assigned, those who

found jobs usually did so in their home state. Of the approximately 42,000

Job Corps participants who obtained jobs after leaving the program in

1994, about 83 percent found jobs in their state of residence (85 percent in

program year 1993). Even those participants who were assigned to Job

Corps centers outside their state of residence generally returned to their

home states for employment. Specifically, of the 18,200 participants

obtaining jobs after being trained in centers outside their state of

residence, about 13,700 (75 percent) obtained those jobs in their home

state (see fig. 6).

Figure 6: Number of Participants Obtaining Jobs in State of Residence, Program Year 1994

Trained in State Trained Out of State

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Number of Participants

Obtained Job in Home State

Obtained Job in Another State

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

Reasons for Assigning

Participants Out of

State

Regional officials stated that substantial numbers of participants were

assigned to centers out of state due, in part, to Labor’s desire to fully

utilize centers. The other principal reason given was to satisfy participant

preferences either to be assigned to a specific center or to be enrolled in a

specific occupational training course.

According to Labor officials, full utilization of Job Corps centers was one

of the principal reasons for assigning participants out of state. The Job

Corps program does not routinely collect the reasons for out-of-state

assignments and, therefore, we were unable to document the specific

factors behind these decisions. However, we contacted Labor officials,

including each of its nine regional directors—who are ultimately

responsible for center assignments—as well as contractors responsible for

15 outreach/screening contracts, to determine what factors contributed to

out-of-state assignments. For the most part, these officials stated that one

of the reasons for not assigning participants to the center closest to their

residence and, instead, to out-of-state centers was to ensure that centers

were fully utilized. For example, they pointed out that many residents

from Florida were assigned to centers in Kentucky; otherwise, centers in

Kentucky would remain underutilized. A similar situation was cited with

respect to participants from California assigned to a center in Utah that

would otherwise be underutilized. In addition, Labor officials noted that

participants were assigned to out-of-state centers to fill openings that

occurred throughout the year because participants continuously leave the

program due to the program’s open-entry, open-exit, self-paced format.

Moreover, at any point, there may not be any state residents ready to

enroll in the program.

Maintaining full capacity in Job Corps centers is one measurement Labor

uses in evaluating regional director performance; Labor data indicate that,

except for a portion of program year 1994,14 the program has operated

near full capacity during the previous 3 program years. Vacancies can

frequently occur at Job Corps centers because of the uneven distribution

of program capacity in relation to demand for services, the continuous

turnover of participants at individual centers, and the irregular flow of

participants into the program. Labor officials said that in program year

1994, Job Corps had an average occupancy rate of about 91 percent

programwide. Average occupancy rates at the regional level, in program

year 1994, ranged from about 83 percent to 97 percent.

14According to Labor officials, a temporary decline in occupancy occurred because of the

implementation of a new zero tolerance policy against drugs and violence, along with the need to place

about 7 percent of accepted new applicants into a control group for a longitudinal study of the

program.

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

We found less evidence to support the other principal reason cited for

assigning participants to distant centers—the need to satisfy participant

preferences, either to attend a particular center or to receive training in a

particular occupation. While the Job Corps data system does not provide

information on the extent to which such preferences are considered when

making assignments, we were able to gain some insight into the degree to

which specific vocational offerings might explain out-of-state assignments.

We analyzed the occupational training courses in which out-of-state

participants were enrolled. We found that over two-thirds of these

individuals were either enrolled in occupational courses commonly

offered throughout the national network of Job Corps centers or were

never enrolled in an occupational course at all. For example, about

13 percent of the participants sent to out-of-state centers were being

trained in clerical positions (available at 91 centers), about 8 percent in

food service (available at 94 centers), and 8 percent in health occupations

(available at 72 centers). In addition, about 11 percent received no specific

vocational offering after being assigned to an out-of-state center (see table

1). Thus, specialized training or uncommon occupational offerings do not

appear to explain these out-of-state assignments. We were, however,

unable to determine whether a training slot in the requested vocational

area was available at the closest center when participants were assigned

out of state.

Table 1: Examples of Vocational

Training Received by Job Corps

Participants Assigned to Out-of-State

Centers, Program Year 1994 Vocational course

Number of

centers offering

course

Percentage of

out-of-state

participants

enrolled in course

Clerical 91 13.5

Food service 94 8.4

Health occupationsa 72 8.1

Welding 68 6.9

Building and apartment maintenance 88 6.0

Bricklaying/cement masonry 66 5.7

Carpentry 84 5.0

Painting 62 4.1

No vocational course 10.7

Total 68.4

aHealth occupations include licensed practical nurse, nurse’s aide, and home health aide

training.

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

Recent Emphasis on

In-State Assignments

During our discussions with regional Job Corps officials, some said that

they have recently begun to focus more on assigning participants to Job

Corps centers that are located in the same state in which they reside.

Region III15 officials incorporate in-state assignment goals into their

outreach and screening contracts, and a March 1995 regional field

instruction states that the region’s center assignment plan “now places

greater emphasis on the assignment of youth to centers within their own

state, or to centers within a closer geographical area.” Similarly, other

regional officials told us that they are now placing greater emphasis on

in-state assignment of youth because of increased congressional interest in

having greater state involvement in the program.

Many States Have

Sufficient Capacity to

Meet In-State Demand

for Job Corps Training

During program year 1994, the majority of states with Job Corps centers

had sufficient capacity to handle virtually all the in-state demand (at least

90 percent of in-state participants) for Job Corps training, but this ability

varied substantially among the states. We compared the demand for Job

Corps services within each state with the total capacity of the centers

located therein. We measured state demand in terms of the number of

residents who participated in Job Corps, regardless of whether they

attended a center within their state of residence or out of state.

Nationwide, 52,000 of the 64,000 Job Corps participants—81 percent

(86 percent in program year 1993)—either were or could have been trained

in centers in their home state. As shown in figure 7, a total of 27 states had

sufficient capacity in their Job Corps centers to accommodate virtually all

the program participants from those states, and another 12 states could

meet at least 70 percent of the demand. (App. VII lists the states in each of

the percentage groupings shown in fig. 7.)

15Includes Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

Figure 7: States’ Capacity to Serve Residents Enrolled in Job Corps Training, Program Year 1994

<30% 30-49% 50-69% 70-89% 90%+

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Percentage of In-State Participants That Could Be Served by States

Number of States

We found substantial differences among states in the capacity of in-state

centers to serve Job Corps participants from their state. For example,

South Carolina had over 1,600 residents participating in Job Corps, but the

centers in that state had the capacity to serve only about 440 participants.

On the other hand, Kentucky had 485 residents in Job Corps, but had the

capacity (6,373) to serve about 13 times that number of participants.

Although 81 percent of Job Corps participants in program year 1994 either

were or could have been served in their state of residence, the remaining

19 percent (over 11,000 youths) lived in states whose centers lacked the

capacity to serve all state residents enrolled in Job Corps. For example,

centers in California, Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina each would

have been unable to serve over 1,000 Job Corps participants in program

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

year 1994 in their existing centers. Figure 8 shows (for those states where

demand was higher than in-state capacity) the states with Job Corps

centers that had a demand that exceeded capacity by 500 or more

participants.

Figure 8: States Where Demand Exceeded Program Capacity by at Least 500 Participants, Program Year 1994

CA CO FL IL LA NC SC VA

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Number of Participants

Capacity

State Residents in Program

In addition, five states (Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode

Island, and Wyoming) did not have a Job Corps center in program year

1994. These states accounted for about another 1,400 participants who

could not be served in their home state. On the other hand, the capacity in

eight states was more than double the number of youths from their states

in Job Corps. For example, Utah’s two centers could accommodate about

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

2,400 youths, but only about 700 state residents were in the program.

Similarly, West Virginia’s centers had a capacity for about 1,100 youths, yet

only about 300 West Virginia youths enrolled in Job Corps (see fig. 9).

Figure 9: States With Twice as Much Capacity in Relation to Number of Residents Enrolled in Job Corps, Program Year

1994

KY NV OK UT WV

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Number of Participants

Capacity

State Residents in Program

Planned Expansion Will

Increase Capacity in Some

States

The Job Corps program’s plan to establish nine new centers over the next

2 years will provide some additional capacity that is needed in states with

existing centers, but will increase capacity in three other states to about

twice the in-state demand. In addition, a center opened in Connecticut

(which had been without a Job Corps center) in May 1996 that will serve

about 300 annually. Overall, this expansion will enable the program to

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
B-271947 

serve an additional 4,000 youths in those states that had insufficient

capacity. For example, planned centers in Alabama, California, Florida,

Illinois, and Tennessee will help those states address the shortage of

available training opportunities for in-state residents, reducing the

shortfall in those states from about 4,700 to 700. However, Job Corps is

also planning to add centers in Maine, Massachusetts, and Michigan,

providing these states with the capacity to serve nearly twice the number

of state residents participating in Job Corps.

Agency Comments In commenting on a draft of this report, Labor expressed some concerns

with our presentation of certain information that it believed needed

greater emphasis and with what it believed were factors we should have

considered in carrying out our analysis.

For example, Labor said that our characterization of in-state demand was

misleading. Furthermore, it said that we did not recognize the limited

availability of advanced training and its impact when calculating distance

for participants assigned out of state. We have clarified our definition of

demand as used in this report and recalculated distance, excluding

advanced training participants, which had no impact on our finding.

Labor also pointed out recent changes in program emphasis and provided

some technical clarification. Labor’s comments, along with our responses,

are printed in appendix IX.

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. Copies will be made available to

others on request.

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

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

to this report include Dianne Murphy Blank, Jeremiah Donoghue, Thomas

Medvetz, Arthur Merriam, and Wayne Sylvia.

Carlotta C. Joyner

Director, Education and

 Employment Issues

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Page 21 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Scope and

Methodology

26

Data Analysis 26

Interviews With Officials 28

Limitations 29

Appendix II 

Comparison of Key

Data for Program

Years 1994 and 1993

31

Appendix III 

States Within Job

Corps Regions,

Program Year 1994

33

Appendix IV 

Comparison of State

Program Capacity

With In-State Demand,

Program Year 1994

34

Appendix V 

Percentage of

Participants Assigned

Out of State, Program

Years 1994 and 1993

36

Percentage of Participants Assigned Out of State, Program Year

1994

36

Percentage of Participants Assigned Out of State, Program Year

1993

36

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Contents

Appendix VI 

Number of

Nonresidents Brought

Into States Compared

With Number of

Residents Sent Out of

State, Program Years

1994 and 1993

37

Appendix VII 

Percentage of In-State

Participants That

Could Be Served by

States, Program Years

1994 and 1993

40

Percentage of In-State Participants That Could Be Served,

Program Year 1994

40

Percentage of In-State Participants That Could Be Served,

Program Year 1993

40

Appendix VIII 

Tables Supporting Bar

Graphs in Report Text

41

Appendix IX 

Comments From the

Department of Labor

43

GAO Comments 48

Related GAO Products 52

Tables Table 1: Examples of Vocational Training Received by Job Corps

Participants Assigned to Out-of-State Centers, Program Year 1994

15

Table I.1: Number of Cases Analyzed, Program Years 1994 and

1993

28

Table VI.1: Participants Assigned Out of State Compared With

Nonresidents Brought In, Program Year 1994

37

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Contents

Table VI.2: Participants Assigned Out of State Compared With

Nonresidents Brought In, Program Year 1993

38

Table VIII.1: Program Capacity of States—Data for Figure 2 41

Table VIII.2: State Residents Assigned to Out-of-State

Centers—Data for Figure 3

41

Table VIII.3: Examples of States With Large Numbers of

Residents Sent Out of State and Nonresidents Brought Into

State—Data for Figure 4

41

Table VIII.4: Percentage of Center Participants From Out of

State—Data for Figure 5

41

Table VIII.5: Number of Participants Obtaining Jobs in State of

Residence—Data for Figure 6

41

Table VIII.6: States’ Capacity to Serve Residents Enrolled in Job

Corps Training—Data for Figure 7

42

Table VIII.7: States Where Demand Exceeded Program Capacity

by at Least 500 Participants—Data for Figure 8

42

Table VIII.8: States With Twice as Much Capacity in Relation to

Number of Residents Enrolled in Job Corps—Data for Figure 9

42

Figures Figure 1: Current and Planned Distribution of Job Corps Centers

by Labor Regions and by States

6

Figure 2: State Job Corps Program Capacity, Program Year 1994 7

Figure 3: State Residents Assigned to Out-of-State Centers,

Program Year 1994

9

Figure 4: States With Large Numbers of Residents Sent Out of

State and Nonresidents Brought Into State, Program Year 1994

11

Figure 5: Percentage of Center Participants From Out of State,

Program Year 1994

12

Figure 6: Number of Participants Obtaining Jobs in State of

Residence, Program Year 1994

13

Figure 7: States’ Capacity to Serve Residents Enrolled in Job

Corps Training, Program Year 1994

17

Figure 8: States Where Demand Exceeded Program Capacity by

at Least 500 Participants, Program Year 1994

18

Figure 9: States With Twice as Much Capacity in Relation to

Number of Residents Enrolled in Job Corps, Program Year 1994

19

Abbreviations

SPAMIS Student Pay, Allotment and Management Information System

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Page 25 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

We designed our study to gather information on how Job Corps is

currently operating in terms of where participants are recruited, trained,

and placed. To do so, we analyzed Labor’s Job Corps participant data file

and interviewed Job Corps officials and recruiting contractors.

Data Analysis To analyze where Job Corps participants are recruited from, assigned for

training, and placed in jobs, we used Labor’s Student Pay, Allotment and

Management Information System (SPAMIS). Among other things, the

database contains information on the placement and screening contractor

for each participant. We analyzed data on Job Corps participants who left

the program during program year 1994 (July 1, 1994, through June 30,

1995), the most recent full year for which data were available. To help

determine whether program year 1994 was a unique year with regard to

participant assignment, we performed similar analyses on comparable

data for program year 1993. Unless otherwise stated, however, all numbers

cited in the report reflect program year 1994 data.

Our basic population consisted of all participants who left the program

during program year 1994 from 113 Job Corps centers. There were 66,022

participants included in this population. Two Job Corps centers have since

closed, but participants from these centers were included in our analysis.

This basic population was used for the analysis of capacity and average

length of stay. We eliminated participant files with missing information or

for participants who resided in Puerto Rico or outside the United States.

We also eliminated from our analyses those participants from states

without Job Corps centers. This brought our analytic population to 64,060.

Certain analyses dealt with subpopulations of the basic population. For

example, for the analysis of where participants obtained jobs, only those

41,975 cases where the file indicated a job placement were used. For

program year 1993, the file indicated that 35,116 participants obtained

jobs.

To determine how far participants traveled when attending out-of-state

centers, we calculated the straight-line distance from the participant’s

residence to the last assigned out-of-state center. The distance was

calculated using the centroid—or center—for the zip code of the

participants’ residence at entry and for the Job Corps center attended. The

5-Digit Zip Code Inventory File—part of the Statistical Analysis System

library—provided the centroid’s latitude and longitude. These latitude and

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

longitude measures became the basis for the distance computations.16 To

determine whether an in-state center was closer, we calculated the

straight-line distance from the participant’s residence to the nearest Job

Corps center located in the participant’s state of residence. We then

compared this distance with the distance to the Job Corps center of

assignment.

Our distance analysis was dependent upon having consistent address and

zip code information for the participants’ residences and Job Corps

centers, and the related longitude and latitude for those zip codes.

Longitude and latitude data for locations outside the 50 states were not

available. Thus, 989 program year 1994 participants from Puerto Rico were

not included in the analysis. Another 680 participants were excluded from

the analysis because either their zip code was not consistent with the state

of residence information or they were missing state or zip code

information. Because our focus for this analysis was on participants who

lived in a state with a Job Corps center, we also excluded 1,434

participants who came from states that did not have Job Corps centers;

these participants had to be assigned to out-of-state centers. This brought

the total of the population for this analysis to 62,391 in program year 1994.

This includes all participants regardless of the type of training program in

which they participated. Table I.1 presents a summary of the subgroup

sizes for analyses performed on program years 1994 and 1993 data.

16This calculation is consistent with that used by MapInfo Corporation’s software reference manual

(Troy, N.Y.: MapInfo Corporation, 1994).

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

Table I.1: Number of Cases Analyzed,

Program Years 1994 and 1993 Number of cases in analysis

Population analytic subgroup Program year 1994 Program year 1993

Total terminees in file 66,022 62,454

Excluded participant files for missing

information (61) (337)

Excluded participants not residing in

United States, District of Columbia, or

Puerto Rico (467) (444)

Total terminees in our population 65,494 61,673

Total terminees in states without Job

Corps centers (1,434) (1,670)

Total terminees in states with Job Corps

centers 64,060 60,003

Distance analysis

Excluded participant files with longitude

and latitude data unavailable (989) (940)

Excluded participant files with

inconsistent or missing zip code data (680) (422)

Total number of participants in distance

analysis 62,391 58,641

To calculate the program year 1994 capacity of each Job Corps center, we

used Labor’s listing of residential and nonresidential capacity at any one

time (slots) for each Job Corps center and multiplied it by the average

number of days in a year (365.25 days). We then divided that number by

the average length of stay of program year 1994 terminees at that center.

For example, the Carl D. Perkins Job Corps Center in Prestonsburg,

Kentucky, had a stated capacity of 245 slots and a program year 1994

average length of stay of 236.56 days. We calculated the yearly capacity of

the Perkins’ Center at 378 participants (245 times 365.25 divided by

236.56). On this basis, we performed center-by-center calculations and

aggregated them to the state level to estimate a yearly capacity by state. To

estimate in-state demand, we used all program participants from that state,

regardless of where they were assigned, as a proxy measure. We recognize

that this does not reflect total program demand, which would also include

those who are eligible and interested in Job Corps but had not yet enrolled

in the program.

Interviews With

Officials

To obtain information on the process the Job Corps program uses to

assign participants to centers, we interviewed Labor officials in the nine

regional offices, as well as at headquarters. Using a semistructured

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

interview protocol, we asked questions related to how participants are

assigned to Job Corps centers, including the program’s policies and

procedures for participant assignments, the responsibilities and

documentation requirements for each level of oversight, and the

assignment patterns for participants within the regions. Additionally, we

asked questions based on the analysis of program year 1993 assignment

information (because program year 1994 data were not yet available at the

time) that showed the extent to which participants were assigned out of

state and out of region. Each official was also asked to comment on the

current assignment patterns for participants within their regions.

To obtain additional information on the Job Corps participant assignment

process, we interviewed a sample of contractors responsible for 15

recruiting contracts. Using the program year 1993 assignment data

contained in SPAMIS, we selected the top 16 large-scale recruiting

contracts—defined as those that assigned over 300 participants to Job

Corps centers—with the highest proportion of participants who were sent

out of state. For contrast, we also chose three other recruiting contracts

from the same locations that had relatively few out-of-state assignments.

Each contractor was interviewed by telephone using a semistructured

interview protocol that included questions relating to the Job Corps’

participant assignment process. Specifically, we asked about the status of

their recruiting contract(s) and their responsibilities and reporting

requirements. We also asked the recruiting contractors to identify those

factors that had the most impact on their decision on where to assign a

participant. Some of the contractors were no longer under contract, and

others could not be reached. As a result, we interviewed contractors

responsible for 13 contracts that had a large proportion of participants

recruited for out-of-state centers and 2 contracts that had relatively fewer

participants going out of state. While our questions were based on the

analysis of program year 1993 assignment information, we also asked each

recruiting contractor to comment on his or her current student assignment

patterns.

Limitations We selected recruiting contractors to interview on the basis of their

assignment of participants to centers outside participants’ states of

residence. This selection process was not random and, therefore, the

results reported cannot be generalized to recruiting contractors overall.

Our distance analysis was based upon zip code centroid and is intended to

provide a gross measure of distance. Actual travel distances may vary. The

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

average length of stay of participants at Job Corps centers can show some

variation from year to year, as would the estimated center capacity when

calculated from this number. To illustrate these variations, we have

presented program year 1993 data alongside data for program year 1994

(see app. II). While we did not verify the accuracy of the SPAMIS data

provided by Labor, we did check the consistency of participants’ zip code

and state of residence data and eliminated those files with inconsistent

information. We also compared the results from our analyses of program

year 1994 data with those from program year 1993 for consistency at the

national, regional, and state levels.

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix II 

Comparison of Key Data for Program Years

1994 and 1993

Program year 1994 Program year 1993

Assignment of state residents

Percentage assigned to centers in home

state 59.0 56.4

Percentage sent to centers in other states 41.0 43.6

Percentage of state residents assigned to

out-of-state centers

Number of states assigning 0-24 percent

of state residents out of state 16 12

Number of states assigning 25-49 percent

of state residents out of state 16 15

Number of states assigning 50-74 percent

of state residents out of state 11 15

Number of states assigning 75%+ state

residents out of state 4 3

Percentage of Job Corps participants

assigned to centers in same region as

residence 95 92

Distances traveled

Average distance traveled (in miles) by

participants assigned to out-of-state

centers 392 338

Average distance (in miles) to nearest

in-state center for those participants

assigned to out-of-state centers 93 77

Percentage of center participants from

out of state

Number of centers having 0-24 percent of

participants from out of state 47 43

Number of centers having 25-49 percent

of participants from out of state 28 28

Number of centers having 50-74 percent

of participants from out of state 23 25

Number of centers having 75+ percent

participants from out of state

15

16

Job placement

Number of participants obtaining jobs 41,975 35,116

Number of participants obtaining jobs in

home state 34,971 29,935

Percentage obtaining jobs in home state 83.3 85.3

In-state capacity and demand

Number of participants that were or could

have been trained in state 52,199 51,752

(continued)

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix II 

Comparison of Key Data for Program Years

1994 and 1993

Program year 1994 Program year 1993

Percentage of participants that were or

could have been trained in state 81.5 86.0

Number of participants unable to be

served in state 11,861 8,410

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix III 

States Within Job Corps Regions, Program

Year 1994

Region I

Region III

Region V

Region VII

Region IX

Connecticut

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Vermont

Delaware

Maryland

Pennsylvania

Virginia

West Virginia

District of Columbia

Illinois

Indiana

Michigan

Minnesota

Ohio

Wisconsin

Iowa

Kansas

Missouri

Nebraska

Arizona

California

Hawaii

Nevada

Region II

Region IV

Region VI

Region VIII

Region X

New Jersey

New York

Puerto Rico

Alabama

Florida

Georgia

Kentucky

Mississippi

North Carolina

South Carolina

Tennessee

Arkansas

Louisiana

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Texas

Colorado

Montana

North Dakota

South Dakota

Utah

Wyoming

Alaska

Idaho

Oregon

Washington

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix IV 

Comparison of State Program Capacity With

In-State Demand, Program Year 1994

Capacity

State Capacitya In-state Excess Insufficient

Alaska 552 420 132

Alabama 1,018 1,499 481

Arkansas 1,143 999 144

Arizona 927 1,193 266

California 3,477 4,591 1,114

Colorado 289 914 625

District of Columbia 824 618 206

Florida 1,630 3,492 1,862

Georgia 2,915 2,711 204

Hawaii 300 148 152

Iowa 517 525 8

Idaho 199 379 180

Illinois 1,089 2,012 923

Indiana 1,138 788 350

Kansas 425 580 155

Kentucky 6,373 485 5,888

Louisiana 799 1,967 1,168

Massachusetts 1,479 889 590

Maryland 1,212 1,535 323

Maine 569 458 111

Michigan 1,428 1,057 371

Minnesota 469 462 7

Missouri 2,291 2,527 236

Mississippi 1,930 2,240 310

Montana 1,090 568 522

North Carolina 1,776 2,375 599

North Dakota 882 347 535

Nebraska 328 474 146

New Jersey 899 1,026 127

New Mexico 1,053 825 228

Nevada 824 324 500

New York 3,252 3,278 26

Ohio 1,557 2,056 499

Oklahoma 2,487 1,177 1,310

Oregon 1,973 1,486 487

Pennsylvania 2,963 2,779 184

Puerto Rico 923 989 66

(continued)

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix IV 

Comparison of State Program Capacity With

In-State Demand, Program Year 1994

Capacity

State Capacitya In-state Excess Insufficient

South Carolina 442 1,691 1,249

South Dakota 325 435 110

Tennessee 925 1,206 281

Texas 4,936 5,313 377

Utah 2,378 681 1,697

Vermont 510 158 352

Virginia 1,456 1,960 504

Washington 1,515 1,741 226

West Virginia 1,124 329 795

Wisconsin 398 353 45

Total 67,009 64,060 14,810 11,861

Note: In program year 1994, Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and

Wyoming had no centers.

aWe calculated capacity by dividing the number of beds at each Job Corps center by the

average length of stay at each center. We then aggregated center capacity to the state level to

estimate a yearly capacity by state.

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix V 

Percentage of Participants Assigned Out of

State, Program Years 1994 and 1993

Percentage of

Participants Assigned

Out of State, Program

Year 1994

0 to 24 Percent: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New

York, Puerto Rico, Utah, Vermont

25 to 49 Percent: Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana,

Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,

Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Washington

50 to 74 Percent: Alabama, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Florida,

Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West

Virginia

75+ Percent: Colorado, Illinois, South Carolina, Wisconsin

Percentage of

Participants Assigned

Out of State, Program

Year 1993

0 to 24 Percent: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts,

Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Utah

25 to 49 Percent: Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi,

Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania,

South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington

50 to 74 Percent: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia,

Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina,

Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia

75+ Percent: Illinois, South Carolina, Wisconsin

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix VI 

Number of Nonresidents Brought Into States

Compared With Number of Residents Sent

Out of State, Program Years 1994 and 1993

Table VI.1: Participants Assigned Out

of State Compared With Nonresidents

Brought In, Program Year 1994

Number of participants who were

Statea

Brought in from

other states

Assigned to

out-of-state centers

Alaska 1 159

Alabama 369 954

Arkansas 580 584

Arizona 35 267

California 170 1,076

Colorado 32 689

District of Columbia 589 390

Florida 298 2,241

Georgia 1,912 1,311

Hawaii 1 8

Iowa 143 120

Idaho 118 255

Illinois 523 1,526

Indiana 916 376

Kansas 56 189

Kentucky 4,858 117

Louisiana 76 1,284

Massachusetts 155 190

Maryland 573 986

Maine 85 100

Michigan 489 251

Minnesota 70 51

Missouri 355 432

Mississippi 593 805

Montana 685 214

North Carolina 765 1,474

North Dakota 11 142

Nebraska 29 187

New Jersey 13 138

New Mexico 563 265

Nevada 531 23

New York 98 372

Ohio 775 962

Oklahoma 1,492 335

Oregon 1,037 490

Pennsylvania 906 813

(continued)

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix VI 

Number of Nonresidents Brought Into States

Compared With Number of Residents Sent

Out of State, Program Years 1994 and 1993

Number of participants who were

Statea

Brought in from

other states

Assigned to

out-of-state centers

Puerto Rico 2 12

South Carolina 80 1,332

South Dakota 64 193

Tennessee 524 755

Texas 1,131 1,577

Utah 1,994 165

Virginia 564 1,164

Vermont 172 30

Washington 603 810

Wisconsin 333 269

West Virginia 905 191

aOnly states with Job Corps centers are included.

Table VI.2: Participants Assigned Out

of State Compared With Nonresidents

Brought In, Program Year 1993

Number of participants who were

Statea

Brought in from

other states

Assigned to

out-of-state centers

Alaska b b

Alabama 234 888

Arkansas 564 628

Arizona 40 248

California 236 994

Colorado 28 501

District of Columbia 506 489

Florida 215 2,075

Georgia 1,694 1,279

Hawaii 3 11

Iowa 150 116

Idaho 138 204

Illinois 683 1,473

Indiana 824 472

Kansas 38 233

Kentucky 4,752 165

Louisiana 165 1,222

Massachusetts 189 185

Maryland 728 1,180

(continued)

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix VI 

Number of Nonresidents Brought Into States

Compared With Number of Residents Sent

Out of State, Program Years 1994 and 1993

Number of participants who were

Statea

Brought in from

other states

Assigned to

out-of-state centers

Maine 120 106

Michigan 308 436

Minnesota 61 75

Missouri 337 406

Mississippi 396 959

Montana 469 155

North Carolina 612 1,420

North Dakota b b

Nebraska 35 117

New Jersey 37 368

New Mexico 423 235

Nevada 456 52

New York 175 371

Ohio 851 987

Oklahoma 1,417 267

Oregon 893 485

Pennsylvania 889 1,133

Puerto Rico 4 7

South Carolina 34 1,294

South Dakota 37 149

Tennessee 416 688

Texas 1,093 1,415

Utah 1,611 137

Virginia 522 1,224

Vermont 122 39

Washington 524 826

Wisconsin 295 291

West Virginia 2,850 169

aOnly states with Job Corps centers are included.

bThe centers in Alaska and North Dakota (one in each state) were not fully operational in program

year 1993.

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix VII 

Percentage of In-State Participants That

Could Be Served by States, Program Years

1994 and 1993

Percentage of In-State

Participants That

Could Be Served,

Program Year 1994

Less Than 30 Percent: South Carolina

30 to 49 Percent: Colorado, Florida, Louisiana

50 to 69 Percent: Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Nebraska

70 to 89 Percent: Arizona, California, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi,

New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia,

Washington

90+ Percent: Alaska, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii,

Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,

Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota,

Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Texas, Utah, Vermont,

West Virginia, Wisconsin

Percentage of In-State

Participants That

Could Be Served,

Program Year 1993

Less Than 30 Percent: None

30 to 49 Percent: Colorado, Louisiana, South Carolina

50 to 69 Percent: Florida, Idaho, Illinois

70 to 89 Percent: Alabama, Arizona, California, Kansas, Maryland,

Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia

90+ Percent: Arkansas, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana,

Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,

Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,

Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington,

West Virginia, Wisconsin

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix VIII 

Tables Supporting Bar Graphs in Report

Text

Table VIII.1: Program Capacity of

States—Data for Figure 2 Number of participants that can be served annually Number of states

100-499 10

500-999 12

1,000-1,499 10

1,500-1,999 6

2,000+ 9

Table VIII.2: State Residents Assigned

to Out-of-State Centers—Data for

Figure 3

Percentage of participants assigned out-of-state Number of states

0-24 16

25-49 16

50-74 11

75+ 4

Table VIII.3: Examples of States With

Large Numbers of Residents Sent Out

of State and Nonresidents Brought

Into State—Data for Figure 4 State

Number of

residents sent out

of state

Number of

nonresidents

brought in state

Arkansas 584 580

Georgia 1,311 1,912

Mississippi 805 593

Ohio 962 775

Pennsylvania 813 906

Tennessee 755 524

Texas 1,577 1,131

Washington 810 603

Table VIII.4: Percentage of Center

Participants From Out of State—Data

for Figure 5

Percentage of participants from out of state Number of centers

0-24 47

25-49 28

50-75 23

75+ 15

Table VIII.5: Number of Participants

Obtaining Jobs in State of

Residence—Data for Figure 6

Location of Job Corps training

Number of

participants

obtaining jobs in

home state

Number of

participants

obtaining jobs in

another state

Trained in state 21,272 2,500

Trained out of state 13,699 4,504

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix VIII 

Tables Supporting Bar Graphs in Report

Text

Table VIII.6: States’ Capacity to Serve

Residents Enrolled in Job Corps

Training—Data for Figure 7

Percentage of in state participants that could be served

by states Number of states

<30 1

30-49 3

50-69 4

70-89 12

90+ 27

Table VIII.7: States Where Demand

Exceeded Program Capacity by at

Least 500 Participants—Data for

Figure 8

State Capacity

State residents in

program

California 3,477 4,591

Colorado 289 914

Florida 1,630 3,492

Illinois 1,089 2,012

Louisiana 799 1,967

North Carolina 1,776 2,375

South Carolina 442 1,691

Virginia 1,456 1,960

Table VIII.8: States With Twice as Much

Capacity in Relation to Number of

Residents Enrolled in Job Corps—Data

for Figure 9

State Capacity

State residents in

program

Kentucky 6,373 485

Nevada 824 324

Oklahoma 2,487 1,177

Utah 2,378 681

West Virginia 1,124 329

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix IX 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

Now on p. 4.

See comment 1.

Now on p. 4.

See comment 2.

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix IX 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Now on p. 10.

See comment 3.

See comment 4.

Now on p. 12.

See comment 5.

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix IX 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Now on p. 11.

See comment 6.

Now on pp. 13-15.

See comment 7.

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix IX 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Now on p. 15.

See comment 8.

Now on p. 15.

See comment 9.

Now on p. 19.

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix IX 

Comments From the Department of Labor

See comment 4.

Page 47 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix IX 

Comments From the Department of Labor

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Labor’s letter

dated June 3, 1996.

GAO Comments 1. The legislative language relating to the assignment of enrollees to Job

Corps centers is included in the Background section of the report.

2. We have modified our report to note that the Job Corps regional

operations are carried out under the direction of nine regional managers.

3. We agree that participants transferring into advanced training may be

required to travel additional miles to attend this training. To respond to

Labor’s comments, we attempted to identify all the participants included

in our analysis who transferred into advanced training courses. We were

able to identify all participants who transferred from the original center to

which they were assigned, regardless of the reason for transfer, but the

information was not available to identify those specifically transferring to

advanced training programs. Nonetheless, eliminating from our analysis

the over 1,800 participants who transferred between centers did not

change our findings. The average distance traveled by participants

assigned to out-of-state centers was 375 miles, compared with about 390

miles when including the over 1,800; the distance to the nearest in-state

center remained the same—93 miles. Thus, our finding—that participants

assigned to centers outside their state of residence were sent to centers

that were, on average, over 4 times as far as the closest in-state center—is

unchanged.

4. We have modified our report, where appropriate, to indicate that our

use of the term “demand” is limited to only those enrolling in Job Corps

and that it does not include those who are eligible and interested in the

program but have not yet enrolled.

5. Our report provides a separate section with a caption that highlights

that program participants are employed in their state of residence.

6. We have clarified our report to recognize that the high number of

nonresidents in the California center cited may have been due to the

nature of the training offered, that is, the center provided advanced

training to participants from across the nation.

7. The reasons for assigning participants to out-of-state centers cited in our

report are based on comments by those involved in deciding where

Page 48 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix IX 

Comments From the Department of Labor

enrollees are actually assigned—the nine regional directors and several

outreach/screening contractors. The principal reasons cited were to fully

use available space at the centers and to satisfy participants’ preferences

either to attend a specific center or to enroll in a specific occupational

training course.

8. As suggested, we have included a statement in the Results in Brief

section that recognizes our inability to determine whether specific

vocational training slots were available at the closest center when

participants were enrolled.

9. We have included a statement on page 4 of our report to recognize Job

Corps’ proactive role in ensuring that the program works more closely

with state and local agencies.

Page 49 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix IX 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 50 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Appendix IX 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 51 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Related GAO Products

Job Corps: Comparison of Federal Program With State Youth Training

Initiatives (GAO/HEHS-96-92, Mar. 28, 1996).

Job Corps Program (GAO/HEHS-96-61R, Nov. 9, 1995).

Job Corps: High Costs and Mixed Results Raise Questions About

Program’s Effectiveness (GAO/HEHS-95-180, June 30, 1995).

(205304) Page 52 GAO/HEHS-96-140 Job Corps Program
Ordering Information

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

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

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. 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

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://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