Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some of the Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth to Education and Employment
Published: 2008-02-28T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: While most young people successfully transition to adulthood, a significant number of youth are disconnected from school and employment. These youth are more likely than others to engage in crime, become incarcerated, and rely on public systems of support. Several federal agencies oversee a number of programs and grants that assist local programs in serving this population at the local level. GAO reviewed the following: (1) characteristics of locally operated programs that serve disconnected youth, (2) the key elements of locally operated programs to which directors attribute their success in reconnecting youth to education and employment, and (3) challenges involved in operating these programs and how federal agencies are helping to address these challenges. GAO interviewed officials from four federal agencies, experts, and directors of 39 local programs identified by agencies and experts as helping youth meet educational and employment goals.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The 39 local programs GAO reviewed differed in their funding sources and program structure, yet shared some characteristics, such as years of experience serving youth. These programs received funding from multiple sources: federal, state, local, and private, although most relied on some federal funds. They were structured differently--for example, some were community-based organizations that provided services on a daily basis, some were charter schools, and some offered residential living. Most of the programs were created to address local concerns such as youth homelessness or dropout rates, and many had at least 10 years of experience serving youth. Program directors GAO interviewed attributed their success in reconnecting youth to education and employment to several key elements of their programs. These included effective staff and leadership; a holistic approach to serving youth that addresses the youth's multiple needs; specific program design components, such as experiential learning opportunities and self-paced curricula; and a focus on empowering youth. Many of the 39 local program directors reported common challenges in operating their programs--the complex circumstances of their participants, service gaps, funding constraints, and management of federal grants--that increased federal coordination efforts under way may help address. Most of the 15 directors that relied on Labor's Workforce Investment Act Youth funds reported that meeting performance goals within 1-year time frames that workforce investment boards often write into contracts hinders their ability to serve youth with great challenges, who may need more time to obtain skills. Labor officials reported that they intend for workforce investment boards to develop longer-term contracts to help programs serve hard-to-employ youth. Labor has provided limited technical assistance and is considering issuing guidance on this issue, but has not established a time frame to do so. Federal agencies have recently intensified their coordination efforts, which may help local programs faced with challenges managing across multiple federal grants.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: A significant number of American youth are not in school and not working.  A significant number of American youth are not in school and not working.  Some of these young people may have become disconnected from  Some of these young people may have become disconnected from  education and employment through incarceration, aging out of foster care,  education and employment through incarceration, aging out of foster care,  dropping out of high school, or homelessness. As a result, these  dropping out of high school, or homelessness. As a result, these  “disconnected” youth may face difficulties in successfully transitioning to  “disconnected” youth may face difficulties in successfully transitioning to  adulthood and self-sufficiency. Not only does this lead to negative  adulthood and self-sufficiency.
There is not a commonly accepted definition of disconnected youth. For the purposes of  this study, we define disconnected youth as youth aged 14 to 24 who are not in school and  not working, or who lack family or other support networks. which program directors attribute their success in reconnecting youth to  education and employment? (3) What challenges are involved in  implementing and operating these programs and how are federal agencies  helping to address these challenges?
To conduct this work, we asked federal agency officials and 11 experts on  youth issues to identify local entities that are operating programs or  initiatives with federal or other funding that have been successful in  helping disconnected youth reach educational or employment goals. We  asked the experts and agency officials, on the basis of their experience  and expertise, to identify local programs that could serve as examples or  models for expansion or replication; rigorous program evaluations were  generally not available. The experts were selected for their understanding  of and range of perspectives on youth issues as well as their knowledge of  efforts under way at the local level. We identified and interviewed officials  from four primary federal agencies that support programs working with  this population: the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services  (HHS), Justice, and Education. We selected these agencies based on their  legislative mandate to administer relevant federal programs, our previous  work, reports from the Congressional Research Service and the White  House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, and discussions with federal  officials. We reviewed relevant appropriation and other laws, regulations,  and documents pertaining to the key federal programs and coordinating  bodies involved with assisting disconnected youth, and synthesized  information from interviews with appropriate federal officials.
Out of 100 programs that were identified, we interviewed 39 directors of  locally operated programs using a standard set of questions. We selected  programs that were geographically diverse, and that represented both  urban and rural locations. We also selected programs with a range of  approaches to working with disconnected youth, such as employment  skills training programs, alternative education programs, transitional living  programs, and programs that targeted different subpopulations of  disconnected youth in 16 states and the District of Columbia. See  appendix I for a complete list of the 39 programs. We conducted in-person  interviews with directors and youth participants in 19 of these programs,  and completed the remaining interviews with directors by phone. See  appendix II for more information on our scope and methodology. We  conducted this performance audit from May 2007 to February 2008 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: While most youth successfully transition to adulthood, many youth  become disconnected from school and work, or social supports, and  experience challenges in making this transition. Some of these youth are  more likely than others to remain low-income, to lose jobs during  economic downturns, and to engage in criminal activities, antisocial  behavior, and teenage parenting. No single estimate exists on the total  number of disconnected youth because of varying definitions, distinct time  periods from which data are drawn, and the use of different data sources.  However, researchers’ estimates of the number of disconnected youth  range from 2.3 million to 5.2 million.
Disconnected youth encompass a broad population that may include high  school dropouts, homeless and runaway youth, incarcerated youth, or youth  who have aged out of the foster care system. Youth of different races and  ethnicities are represented among this youth population. However, research  studies show that African-American males constitute a disproportionate share  of the population. For example, many young African-American males  experience high incarceration rates, and African-Americans are generally  overrepresented in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Many young  women also become disconnected to assume parenting responsibilities. In  addition, the risk of disconnection is particularly high among youth with  emotional disturbances and learning disabilities, many of whom have not  mastered basic literacy skills. These youth have higher dropout rates and  poorer employment outcomes than other youth.
To assist youth transitioning to adulthood, direct services are provided at  the local level with the support of federal, state, local, and private funding  sources. A range of local entities, such as community-based organizations  and charter schools, in urban and rural communities nationwide, provide  services to reconnect these youth to education and employment.
subsections: section_title: Role of Federal Agencies in Assisting Local Efforts
paragraphs: Multiple federal agencies play a role in providing funding and assistance to  local programs that serve disconnected youth. The White House Task  Force for Disadvantaged Youth identified 12 federal agencies that fund  over 300 programs that assist local communities in serving disadvantaged  youth in some capacity. However, four agencies—the Departments of  Labor, HHS, Education, and Justice—play a primary role and contain some  of the largest youth-serving grant programs in terms of funding.
Despite having distinct missions, these four agencies share the common goal of  reconnecting youth to education and the workforce, and each works to  accomplish this goal by administering multiple programs. (See table 1 for a  listing of key federal grant programs that serve disconnected youth.)
Labor’s workforce programs provide funding for both workforce  training and education services for youth up to age 24, including youth  involved in the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems, school  dropouts, and homeless youth.
HHS’s grant programs serve runaway and homeless youth up to age 21  or youth who have aged out of foster care or are likely to age out.  These grants fund local programs that have education and workforce  components, and also assist youth in connecting to housing and long- term support networks.
Education’s various related grant programs focus on youth who are  homeless; neglected, delinquent, or at risk; out of school; or  incarcerated in a state prison within 5 years of release or parole  eligibility. The programs facilitate youths’ enrollment and success in  school and vocational programs.
Justice’s grant programs serve those youth 17 and under who are  involved in or at risk of becoming involved in the juvenile justice  system. Grant programs administered by Justice aim to help youth  make the successful transition out of the juvenile justice system and on  to education and workforce pathways.
In total, these programs received over $3.7 billion in appropriated funds in  2006. Labor’s Job Corps program accounted for almost half—$1.6 billion— of these appropriations, and its WIA Youth Activities accounted for nearly  $1 billion. Some of the programs serve a broad subsection of youth,  including some who may not be disconnected per our definition, such as  young adults over 24 and in-school youth. See appendix III for more  information on key federal grant programs’ eligibility criteria and  purposes.
Federal youth-serving agencies distribute funds to locally operated  programs through varying mechanisms. Some programs first provide funds  to states, which are then passed to local units of government or programs.  For example, Justice awards formula grants to states that can be used to  fund projects for the development of more effective juvenile delinquency  programs and improved juvenile justice systems. Juvenile justice  specialists in each state administer the funding through subgrants to units  of local government or local private agencies in accordance with  legislative requirements. Similarly, Education, through the Adult  Education and Family Literacy Act, Title II of WIA, awards funds to local  eligible providers through state education or labor agencies. Much in the  same way, Labor allocates WIA Title I funds to states, which in turn  distribute much of this money to their local workforce investment boards.  These boards then award competitive contracts to youth providers. Other  federal grants, such as Labor’s YouthBuild program and HHS’s  Transitional Living Program are awarded through a competitive process  in which local organizations submit grant proposals directly to the federal  agencies.
Federal agencies also provide technical assistance and guidance to local  programs. For example, to support programs that receive WIA funds,  Labor provides online training courses through a contractor, including  Web-based, interactive seminars and tutorials. Labor also provides  targeted technical assistance to help local areas most in need by assisting  them in identifying and correcting issues that are negatively affecting  performance outcomes. Similarly, a training provider and a technical  assistance provider assist HHS’s Transitional Living Program grantees  nationally by helping them to develop new approaches to serving youth,  access new sources of funding, and establish linkages with other grantees  that have similar issues and concerns. These providers also track trends,  identify and share best practices, and sponsor conferences and  workshops. To assist local programs in identifying successful program  models, Justice maintains a database with information on evidence-based  prevention programs that serve at-risk and court-involved youth across the  country.
All four federal agencies require local programs to report on their progress  with youth by collecting data on youth outcomes, such as attainment of  their General Educational Development (GED) credential or job  placement, and some of these outcomes are tied to financial sanctions and  incentives. For example, HHS requires Transitional Living Program  grantees to record each youth’s living situation, physical and mental  health, and grade completed when the youth exits from the program,  among other data elements. Sometimes data must pass through an  intermediary agency such as a state education agency or local workforce  investment board, and these entities may require additional data from  programs for their own monitoring purposes. The federal programs collect  this information to monitor the progress toward goals, and to ensure that  local programs are serving the targeted population and spending money  appropriately. Federal agencies may also affect local programs by setting  specific penalties for programs or states that do not meet certain goals or  benchmarks. These mechanisms are intended to encourage a high level of  performance and accountability. For example, Labor negotiates  performance goals with states for WIA Youth Activities, and if states do  not meet 80 percent of those goals for more than 2 years in a row,  monetary sanctions may be imposed. However, Labor offers states  technical assistance after the first year when requested by states, and  relatively few states have actually been financially penalized. States are  also eligible to receive performance incentives if they exceed certain  performance levels.
section_title: Local Programs We Reviewed Differed in Their Funding Sources and Program Structure, yet Shared Some Characteristics
paragraphs: The 39 local programs we reviewed received funding from a range of  government and private sources, and differed in their program structure,  yet shared some specific characteristics. The programs we reviewed  received funding from federal, state, local, and private sources, and all but  6 programs received some federal funding. Some federal funding sources  required programs to follow a specific model or offer a standard set of  services, while others allowed programs to use funding more flexibly. The  programs also varied in their program structure. For example, some were  community-based organizations that provided services on a daily basis,  some were charter schools, and some offered residential living. Within  these different program structures, some programs also targeted their  efforts to specific youth subpopulations, such as court-involved youth. Yet  despite these differences, programs shared some characteristics. For  example, all of the programs we reviewed were created to meet the needs  of local youth such as addressing youth homelessness and high school  dropout rates. Most of the programs had also operated for several years,  and provided ancillary services in addition to employment and educational  assistance to address the multiple needs of their youth participants.
subsections: section_title: Programs Received Funding from Federal, State, Local, and Private Sources
paragraphs: The 39 programs we reviewed received funding from a variety of sources,  including federal, state, local, and private sources. Eleven of these  programs reported that their funding primarily comes from federal  sources, and nearly half received a combination of federal, state, local, and  private funding. All but 6 of the programs in our review received some  federal funding. Figure 1 summarizes the sources of funding for the local  programs we reviewed.
In some cases, federal funding sources may require programs to follow a  specific model or offer a standard set of services, and in other cases  federal funding can be used more flexibly. For example, all of Labor’s Job  Corps centers feature campus-like settings with youth housed in  dormitories and a similar model for guidance and support at all sites to  help youth achieve long-term employment. Similarly, HHS’s Transitional  Living Program grantees are required to offer a specific set of services,  either directly or by referral, to youth in their programs, including  instruction in budgeting, housekeeping, menu planning, food preparation,  and parenting. By contrast, Education’s Adult Education Grants, which  serve both adults and out-of-school youth ages 16 and older, support  workplace literacy services, GED instruction, family literacy services, or  English-language learning programs and can be delivered by public  schools, community colleges, libraries, or other providers.
section_title: The 39 Programs We Reviewed Were Structured Differently to Provide Employment and Educational Services to Youth
paragraphs: The 39 programs we reviewed structured their services to youth in  different ways. For example, some programs were community  organizations that provided specific training for youth at their organization  during the day. Some were established as charter schools, and some were  residential programs, most often providing transitional housing to  homeless and/or runaway youth. Many of the programs were a  combination of these different approaches. For example, one charter  school also provided residential facilities for youth. Another program with  a primary focus on providing employment opportunities to youth also had  a charter school on the premises. Depending in part on the structure of the  program, the programs varied in size, length of involvement for youth, and  the extent of follow-up they conducted with exiting participants.
Several of the programs we reviewed were community organizations that  worked to improve the employment outcomes of youth by helping them to  gain the skills needed to be successful in the workplace. They generally  provided a range of employment training opportunities to youth during the  day, such as teaching youth interviewing techniques, and how to develop a  résumé and work in a team environment. Some programs provided  vocational training to youth participants in certain industries, such as  construction or health care, to teach work skills. To the extent possible,  some programs also provided youth with on-the-job training by placing  them in internships and employment opportunities. In addition to  employment training and placement, several of the programs also assisted  youth in meeting their educational goals by providing them with  opportunities to earn a GED credential or high school diploma either on- site or in collaboration with other organizations in the community. Figure  2 describes a community organization we visited in Boston that works to  improve employment outcomes for youth.
Several of the programs were established as charter schools or  nontraditional schools, often referred to as “alternative education schools,”  to assist youth who have dropped out of traditional public schools. These  programs typically allowed youth to learn in a small classroom-based  setting. Some of these programs were selective and required youth to test at  certain grade levels or have a certain amount of credits earned before they  can be admitted into the program, and generally had a focus on academic  and vocational education. Youth typically spent part of their time attending  academic classes, such as math or reading classes, to achieve basic  academic skills so they can pass the GED exam or earn a high school  diploma. In addition to these academic classes, youth typically attended  vocational classes to learn work skills and specific trades. To facilitate  learning outside of the classroom, some of these schools provided youth  with internships or employment opportunities in the community, or allowed  youth to participate in service projects.  Figure 3 describes a charter school  we visited in Washington, D.C.
Many of the programs we reviewed provided residential living  accommodations and services to youth to help them develop the skills  necessary to transition to independence. Many of these programs were  transitional living programs that served runaway and/or homeless youth.  Living accommodations for youth in transitional living programs typically  vary and can include group homes, maternity group homes, or apartments  that are supervised by staff. Several of these programs were small, with  fewer than 20 youth residents. Some programs were structured and  established ground rules that participants must follow. To address the  multiple needs of these youth, these programs generally offered a range of  services, including educational opportunities, such as GED preparation,  postsecondary training, or vocational education; and basic life skills  building, such as budgeting and housekeeping. The length of time youth  participants stayed in a program varied; some youth stayed on average 4  months, while others stayed a year and a half or longer, depending on their  needs and certain eligibility criteria. Figure 4 describes a transitional  living program we visited in Portland, Oregon. In addition, one residential  program we reviewed was targeted to court-involved youth. Labor’s Job  Corps program also provided residential facilities to youth in that  program.
Within these different program structures, some of the programs we  reviewed targeted their efforts to specific youth subpopulations. For  example, a few programs provided support to youth aging out of the foster  care system, who typically lack social supports, to help them make a  successful transition to adulthood and self-sufficiency. These programs  may offer a range of support services, such as food and housing  assistance, educational opportunities, and advocacy. Other programs  worked to improve the outcomes of court-involved youth. Some of these  programs varied in structure and approach to working with youth. For  example, one program operating a juvenile residential facility offered  youth vocational education and life skills training, as well as a full range of  academic courses and diploma options. Other programs provided court- involved youth with on-the-job training through their vocational curricula  and service projects.
section_title: Despite Different Approaches to Serving Youth, Local Programs Shared Some Specific Characteristics
paragraphs: Despite these differences, the 39 local programs we reviewed shared some  characteristics. All of the programs we reviewed were created to meet the  needs of local youth, such as addressing youth homelessness and high  school dropout rates. For example, one program was started by an  individual seeking to assist high school dropouts in her community by  allowing youth to complete their GED while acquiring construction skills.  Another program providing employment training and placement to youth  was started by a local police officer who wanted to help young men  returning to the community from jail obtain support services and the skills  needed to achieve self-sufficiency. Most of these programs were well  established, with many providing services to youth for at least 10 years.  Slightly less than half of the programs had 20 years or more of experience  in assisting youth, and relatively few were newly established with less than  5 years of experience. In addition, most programs provided services, such  as counseling or housing assistance, to their youth participants directly or  through referrals to community service providers.
section_title: Directors of the 39 Local Programs Cited Similar Key Elements in Reconnecting Youth to Educational and Employment Goals
paragraphs: While varying types of programs serve disconnected youth, directors of  the 39 local programs we reviewed identified similar key elements of their  programs that assist them in reconnecting youth to educational and  employment goals. These include employing effective staff and leadership  to build strong relationships with youth and the community, addressing  youth needs in a holistic manner, incorporating a variety of specific  program design components, and empowering youth to achieve their  goals. Our findings on key elements in reconnecting youth are generally in  line with those cited in literature on youth and by other experts on youth  issues whom we interviewed. These elements and key components are  shown in figure 5 and are discussed in more detail in the following  sections.
subsections: section_title: Staff and Leadership Are Key in Building Relationships with Youth and Community Partners
paragraphs: Nearly all of the 39 directors cited the importance of staff in building  strong relationships with youth to help them achieve their goals. For some  youth, their interactions with staff may be among the first positive  experiences they had with adults. Many youth we spoke with across  programs agreed that staff were a primary reason they continued in the  program. For example, one youth we spoke with told us she continued to  participate in her program because the staff helped her establish goals and  provided a supportive environment. In many cases, the relationships  between staff and youth participants continue well after these youth  complete the program, providing an ongoing source of support to the  participants. Figure 6 depicts photos of staff working with youth  participants at two programs we visited. Directors reported that they have  developed a range of strategies to retain staff, which included providing  competitive pay and benefits. One director provides training to reduce  burnout and help her staff feel more confident and competent. Others said  that they maintain a low caseload for case managers, allow staff to have  input in program development, and conduct recognition ceremonies to  award staff for their accomplishments.
Program leadership also played a key role in maintaining successful  programs and garnering community support that leads to funding and  other resources. The vision of certain program directors helped programs  to continually innovate to meet the needs of youth in their communities.  For some programs, the same leadership had been in place since their  inception, a fact that has contributed toward their continued stability.
Directors had built strong relationships with a range of community  stakeholders, including mayors, city departments, local businesses,  employers, and clergy. For example, two youth-serving programs reported  that they received funding from their mayor and city after the federal  Youth Opportunity grants were eliminated, a fact that enabled them to  continue to provide services to youth. Additionally, programs established  relationships with service providers in the community to gain access to a  range of educational or employment opportunities for youth. For example,  one program partnered with a local community college program to provide  skills training and certification for entry-level jobs. Other programs  partnered with employers to provide their youth participants with  employment placements, internships, and job shadowing opportunities.  One director working with court-involved youth noted that these  relationships were critical to finding employment for their youth  participants with criminal records. Program reputation, longevity of the  program and its staff, and ability of the management to plan for the future  and attract relevant stakeholders were cited as factors helping programs  to coordinate efforts within their communities.
section_title: Directors Emphasized the Importance of Addressing Youth Needs in a Holistic Manner
paragraphs: To address the multiple needs of participants, many program directors  told us that, to the extent possible, their programs took a holistic approach  to providing comprehensive support services to youth either on-site or in  collaboration with other service providers in the community. (Fig. 7  illustrates the range of services one local Job Corps center offers youth  participants in addition to educational and employment assistance.) In one  program, on-site case managers provided individual counseling to youth  and referred these youth to providers in the community for additional  services, such as substance abuse and mental health services, if needed.  Another director of a program working with runaway and homeless youth  said the program provides a continuum of services, including on-site  health services, such as psychological assessments and human  immunodeficiency virus testing. Other medical services were provided  through a partnership with the local public health department.
section_title: Specific Program Design Components Help Programs to Engage and Retain Young People
paragraphs: Program directors incorporated a variety of specific design components to  help engage and retain youth, such as experiential learning opportunities,  engagement in civic activities, self-paced curricula and flexible schedules,  and financial and nonfinancial incentives. Many program directors told us  that they incorporated experiential learning opportunities, which provide  youth with hands-on learning opportunities and on-site training, to  emphasize concepts used in the classroom or to teach work skills. For  example, one director of a program that teaches various trades to court- involved youth allows young people to apply their academic skills to real  world situations. Youth receiving training in construction, for example,  can apply math concepts they learn in the classroom to construction  projects in the community. One young person participating in this program  said that he appreciated this applied setting and is more motivated to learn  math skills. Through such on-the-job training, youth also learn how to take  directions from supervisors and work as part of a team, skills that are  necessary in the work environment. Figure 8 depicts a photo of a local  program’s workshop that trains out-of-school youth in construction.
Directors reported that civic engagement provides youth with an  opportunity to give back to the community and learn how to get involved  with government and community activities. One director of a program  serving court-involved youth said that his curriculum incorporated a  restorative justice framework whereby youth participate in community  activities to make up for their negative behavior. Some of these  community service activities included building a deck for a local youth- serving organization or constructing homes for low-income families. Other  programs arranged local field trips to expose youth to government and  community activities. For example, one educational and occupational  training program organized field trips to city hall, cultural events, and  museums to teach youth about various community activities. A young  person who attended such an event at the local city hall said the  experience taught him about public hearings and how to be an advocate  for issues that affect him.
To accommodate the various needs of their youth participants, many  programs employed an individualized or self-paced curriculum and a  flexible class schedule. For example, one educational and occupational  training program reported that it tailored students’ academic course of  study to their skill level through more individualized attention. One young  person, who dropped out of school because the slow pace had left him  unchallenged, told us that he became re-engaged in school work through  the program’s self-paced curriculum. To further accommodate the needs  of their youth participants, such as parenting or employment, programs  provided flexibility to their youth in developing class schedules.
Over half of the 39 programs used incentives to retain youth or encourage  positive behavior. These incentives may include industry-related  certifications upon graduation, transportation vouchers, rent subsidies,  and educational scholarships to attend college. In particular, a few  housing or foster care programs provide youth with housing subsidies and  help them to set up personal savings accounts to save for future expenses,  such as buying a car or placing a deposit on an apartment. A few programs  had coordinated with the federal AmeriCorps program to provide  educational scholarships to reward youth for their service in the  program. Other programs have established a behavioral management  system that incorporates incentives to reward youth for positive behavior.  For example, one program allowed youth to earn points for maintaining a  clean room, arriving on time to school, and not being involved in negative  incidents. These points can then be traded in for items valuable to the  youth participants, such as compact discs.
section_title: Programs Empower Youth by Setting Expectations and Strengthening Their Leadership Skills
paragraphs: According to HHS’s Ntionl Cleringhouse on  Fmilie nd Yoth, the yoth development  pproch, developed over 0 ye go y  rercher nd prctitioner, emphasize providing  ervice nd opportnitie to support yong people  to succeed nd contribute as lt y incorporting  for component:       ene of competence       ene of useflness      ene of elonging, nd       ene of power.
Program directors reported that they empower youth by setting high  expectations, establishing a clear code of conduct, and strengthening their  leadership skills. Many directors told us that they use an approach that  focuses on youths’ capacities, strengths, and developmental needs rather  than solely on their problems and risks—often referred to as the “youth  development approach” by researchers and practitioners. According to  one director, youth have been accustomed to interacting with people and  systems that focus on their deficits rather than their talents and strengths,  leading them to lack confidence in their abilities. By setting high  expectations, staff demonstrate confidence in youth, and in turn some  youth will rise to those expectations. Many programs told us that they  balance these high expectations with a clear code of conduct that provides  youth with guidelines about the consequences of their behaviors.
A ner of federgencie, fondtion, nd  ntionl orgniztion tilize thi frmework in their  inititive.  For exmple, HHS’s Fmily nd Yoth  Service Breau, one of the federgencie in or  review, hasnded demontrtion project t the  te level to encoge collabortive pproche to  yoth development. For more informtion, ee  Ntionl Cleringhouse on Fmilie nd Yoth We ite t http://www.ncfy.com.
To strengthen youths’ leadership skills and improve program services,  many program directors reported involving youth in a variety of program  operation activities. Many programs involved youth in the process to hire  new staff or their outreach and recruitment efforts for new participants.  One program encouraged youth to attend advisory board meetings once a  quarter to talk about what is working and additional needs. Other  programs have established youth councils to help set goals for the  program and solicit input from other youth participants. In addition,  several directors noted that they hired former youth participants as staff.  One director from a program that serves foster care youth said that these  youth workers are key because they can relate to other youths’  circumstances and can teach them conflict resolution and coping skills.
section_title: Directors We Interviewed Cited Service Gaps, Funding Constraints, and Federal Grant Management Challenges That Hindered Their Efforts; Federal Coordination Efforts Under Way May Help Address Some of These Issues
paragraphs: Program directors reported challenges addressing some of the issues  faced by youth in their programs as well as gaps in certain services, such  as housing and employment opportunities for youth. Most directors  reported that funding constraints from federal and other sources challenge  program stability and efforts to serve more youth. Funding for many of the  key federal programs we reviewed that serve disconnected youth has  remained the same or declined since 2000. In addition, many of the 15  directors with federal WIA Youth funding noted that the need to meet  certain WIA Youth performance goals within short-term time frames  discouraged them from serving youth that may need more time and  assistance to achieve specified outcomes. Labor officials acknowledged  that states and workforce investment boards sometimes issue 1-year  contracts with local programs that unintentionally discourage the  programs from working with lower-skilled youth and that the boards may  need more assistance from Labor to address this issue. Regarding local  programs receiving funding from more than one federal source, several  directors cited varying grant requirements that pose a challenge for local  programs to reconcile. In recent years at the federal level, existing and  new federal initiatives have intensified efforts to coordinate federal youth  programs and provide assistance to state and local youth-serving efforts,  which may help to address some challenges faced by local programs.
subsections: section_title: Programs Constrained by Circumstances and Needs of Some Youth and Gaps in Services at the Community Level
paragraphs: Most directors cited the complex nature of the youth populations they  serve and issues facing youth at the community level as key challenges to  successfully reconnecting youth to education and employment. These  challenges are further complicated by a gap in needed services at the local  level. Figure 9 identifies the top gaps in services most frequently cited by  local program directors.
A large number of the program directors reported that their youth have  mental health issues, and several said these issues may be undiagnosed or  untreated before entering the program, and that their communities lack  adequate mental health services. Directors cited trauma, depression, and  attachment disorders as examples of the mental health issues faced by  some of the youth. Several directors said that these mental health issues  were undiagnosed prior to the youths’ involvement with their programs.  As one director stated, the complex family and living situations many of  these youth come from and the long-term effects of abuse and neglect  experienced by some of these youth need to be addressed in order for  youth to have success in reaching employment or educational goals.  However, more than half of the program directors cited a lack of mental  health treatment as a major gap in their communities. Most often,  directors attributed this gap in mental health services to inadequate funds.  Some directors also attributed the gap to a misperception of the need for  mental health treatment. For example, one director believed that the  mental health services these youth need to transition to self-sufficiency  have not been adequately understood or addressed by policymakers. At  the same time, a few of the program directors also noted that youth  themselves are unaware that they need intensive counseling and resist  pursuing mental health treatment due to the associated stigma.
Some programs also reported that a number of their youth have learning  disabilities, and that these may have been undiagnosed by the school  system. For example, one alternative education program stated that in  2002, nearly 45 percent of its students were diagnosed with learning or  emotional disabilities. Of these students, only half had been diagnosed  before coming to their program. Many programs reported that the low  educational attainment of the youth slow their efforts to achieve  educational and employment outcomes. According to one director, high  school-aged youth are frustrated when they test at a seventh grade level.  Another director reported that, on average, her youth test at a fifth to sixth  grade level in reading and a fourth to fifth grade level in math. She noted  that her program’s staff must work with youth who are at a tremendous  skills deficit to achieve outcomes.
Violence and drugs at the community level create additional challenges to  youth efforts to successfully complete their programs. A large number of  programs we reviewed reported that their communities struggled with  gangs, violence, or drugs, which may affect youths’ success. Due to gangs  and violence, one director reported that young people in the program face  peer pressure that may detract from their efforts to remain in the program.  Additionally, youth may not feel safe traveling to the program, or may have  trouble focusing when violence affects their family or friends. One  program that works predominantly with youth involved in gangs reported  that in a 2 ½-year time frame, 26 of their youth participants were  murdered. This program and other programs have developed close  relationships with law enforcement officials to keep abreast of gang  activity to ensure the youths’ safety and generally to serve youth in such  communities better. A number of directors also reported high levels of  drug activity in their communities, and many reported substance abuse  issues among the youth they serve. However, program directors also cited  gaps in substance abuse services. One program director said that 80  percent of youth in his program are in need of substance abuse services,  and that these services were less available for his participants than in  previous years.
A majority of the 39 directors cited a lack of affordable housing as a top  challenge for youth who are trying to become self-sufficient. Many  directors discussed a lack of affordable long-term housing, and several  referred to a lack of temporary housing or shelters for youth. Some  directors attributed the high cost of housing to revitalization efforts in  certain areas, and some believed that policymakers lack the political will  to focus on affordable housing needs. Directors reported that wages for  this population are low, which creates challenges for their youth  participants to afford housing. In one community, the program director  reported a 3-year waiting list for low-income housing. Certain restrictions  that affect specific subpopulations of disconnected youth further limit  housing options. For example, landlords are reluctant to lease apartments  to youth who are unemployed, have been involved in the criminal justice  system, or do not have a parent to cosign a lease. In addition, some  programs also expressed concern that there are not enough shelters  available for homeless youth.
The affordable housing challenge is further complicated by employment  challenges. Several directors cited a lack of jobs that pay a sufficient wage  and a reluctance by employers to hire certain subpopulations of youth as  major challenges facing youth in their community. According to one  transitional living program, the lack of low-skilled jobs that pay enough to  meet living expenses, coupled with rising housing costs, makes it nearly  impossible for a young person to transition to a stable living situation  upon leaving the program. In addition, a number of programs working with  court-involved youth discussed the challenge these youth face obtaining  employment because they have a criminal record. One program director  working with ex-offender youth said these youth are aware of the limited  employment opportunities they face and some of them lose hope in their  ability to secure a job. He further noted that it is hard to keep them  motivated and feeling positive given these constraints, even with stipends  for academic and employment training.
Job opportunities for youth may also be limited by transportation  challenges. Many program directors in both rural communities and urban  centers cited challenges with the accessibility or affordability of  transportation that affect youth access to opportunities, especially  employment. Directors cited the high cost of public transportation as a  barrier for the youth in their programs. One director of a program in an  urban community that places youth in employment said some jobs require  youth to go on multiple interviews and the youth do not have the money to  pay for transportation to and from these interviews. The program tries to  help youth with the transportation barrier, but the amount of funding it  can allocate toward transportation is determined by its funders. Another  program that trains youth for jobs in the construction field noted that a lot  of the construction jobs are in suburban areas, which are not well serviced  by public transportation. We were told of young people taking multiple  buses and many hours to travel to a workplace, impeding their ability to  sustain employment.
section_title: Funding Constraints from Government and Other Sources Challenge Program Stability and Efforts to Serve More Youth
paragraphs: Local programs told us that funding constraints from all sources have  created significant challenges in working with their disconnected youth  populations. Difficulty with funding was rated as the number one overall  challenge faced by local programs, and some program directors noted that  their funding was either declining or not keeping pace with inflation or  with demand for their services. Funding for 10 of the 15 key federal  programs we reviewed has remained the same or declined since 2000. WIA  Youth funds have been reduced from a high of $1.13 billion in fiscal year  2001 to $940 million in fiscal year 2007. This represents a decline of about  27 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars. While overall Transitional Living  Program funding increased in fiscal year 2002 to support a greater number  of programs, the amount available each year to individual local programs  —capped at $200,000—has not changed since 1992. One program director  explained that considering increases in the costs of operation, this amount   funds only part of one staff rather than three as in previous years. Despite  these reductions, many of the programs we spoke with emphasized that  the demand for their services has continued. For example, more than half  of the programs reported having a waiting list of youth in need of their  services ranging from 10 to 1,000 youth, and high school dropout rates in  many communities remain high. The Annie E. Casey Foundation found  that between 2000 and 2005, an additional 626,000 youth between the ages  of 18 and 24 became disconnected from school and work, based on U.S.  Census Bureau statistics.
Program directors also stressed that the unpredictability of federal grant  money has made it difficult to run their programs. In particular, most of  the program directors who received Transitional Living Program funds  told us that one of their greatest concerns for this grant source was its  unpredictability and a perception that HHS does not take into  consideration enough the experience of current grantees.  HHS officials  said that the agency used to award extra points to current grantees of the  program, a practice it stopped a few years ago to allow new organizations  to have greater opportunity.  They also acknowledged that this is a highly  competitive grant and that there are likely many deserving programs they  are unable to support, given the budget. Other programs noted that the  short-term nature of some grants made it difficult to predict how long they  could sustain some of their programming and plan for the long term.  Program directors we interviewed stressed the importance of predictable  and long-term funding commitments for working with disconnected youth  who in particular require sustained services and support during precarious  transitional years. While most of the programs we reviewed received some  federal dollars, those that relied more heavily on private, state, or local  funding expressed similar concerns with the limited amount, as well as the  consistency, of funds available for the populations of youth with which  they work.
In response to these funding constraints, program directors reported that  they had modified or limited their services. One program eliminated its  GED instruction in response to decreases in WIA Youth funds, and another  reduced youth served from 1,500 participants in 2000 to a current capacity  of 300 because of similar reductions. Some program directors told us that  the amount of funding they received limited their ability to follow up with  youth after they complete the program or to conduct program evaluations  to improve services. Program directors told us that funding levels also  affected their ability to attract and retain staff. In fact, one Transitional  Living Program director told us that upon leaving the program, some of the  youth the program serves found jobs that paid higher wages than those of  the program staff, a fact that affected the program’s ability to retain staff.
section_title: Performance Contracts Associated with Some Federal Funding May Have Unintended Consequences
paragraphs: Many of the 15 local program directors who received WIA Youth funding  reported that meeting the performance goals for which they were held  accountable within short-term contracts discouraged them from working  with low-skilled youth who may need increased time and assistance to  reach specified outcomes, such as employment or educational gains.  Several local program directors said their WIA contracts are for 1 year,  and that the need to achieve outcome measures often based on only 12  months of service provided a disincentive to serve those youth with the  greatest challenges. Program directors explained that youth entering  their programs may have multiple barriers, such as criminal backgrounds,  limited reading abilities, and lack of social support, and require a longer  investment in order to achieve positive outcomes than other youth. In  order to meet current federal performance goals, such as employment  outcome goals, within a 1-year period, some directors of the WIA-funded  programs reported that they only accept youth who test at least at a  certain grade level. One director explained that many employers will not  consider hiring young people who cannot read at least at a specific grade  level. In some areas, this can mean leaving behind a significant number of  youth who are out of school. One program director in Baltimore told us  that because of its policy to accept youth that test at least at a seventh  grade level, the program has to turn away 80 percent of youth who seek its  services even though it has the capacity to serve some of these youth.
Labor officials said they were aware that workforce investment boards,  which award contracts to local programs, have implemented local  program contracts in a way that may unintentionally discourage programs  from working with lower-skilled youth and have taken some initial steps to  address this issue. The officials acknowledged that 12 months is often an  inadequate time frame within which to ensure that youth will fulfill  education- and employment-related outcomes. Labor officials explained  that for all but one of the measures there is no requirement to achieve  performance goals within 1 year and workforce investment boards often  develop 1-year contracts despite Labor’s intent for them to develop longer- term contracts.  Labor has taken some steps to address this problem. For  example, it is currently conducting some training for workforce  investment boards to explain the importance of a longer-term investment  in youth in order to reach outcomes. It has also, through a national  contractor, provided technical assistance on this issue to some state and  local workforce investment boards and youth programs. However, it has  not provided technical assistance more broadly on this issue. Labor  officials also told us they were considering issuing guidance at some point  in the future to help boards understand ways to establish contracts to  better ensure programs have incentives to work with hard-to-employ  youth, a population group Labor acknowledges is important to serve.  Labor officials said they have not yet established a time frame for  developing and issuing guidance on this.
Labor officials noted another development that may provide local youth- serving programs more flexibility to serve youth at all skill levels. As part  of an Office of Management and Budget requirement for programs across  multiple agencies to report on uniform evaluation metrics, Labor has  adopted and implemented the three common performance measures for  youth employment and training programs developed by the Office of  Management and Budget. It asserts that these measures may better  capture improvements made by youth at all skill levels, instead of the  seven measures currently in statute, reducing the incentive for some  programs to select only higher-skilled youth. The three new performance  measures, referred to as the common measures, apply to youth of all ages,  and focus on literacy or numeracy gains as well as placement in  employment and education as outcomes, which may give more flexibility  to programs to work with youth at different levels. By contrast, the current  measures for older youth (aged 19 to 21) emphasize employment  outcomes, such as employment retention after 6 months. (See table 2.)  Labor uses data on performance measures that states collect from service  providers to track states’ progress in meeting performance goals. Labor  officials told us that states must collect data for both sets of measures  until the new measures are established through law, although some states  have already started to work with the new measures. For program year  2007, Labor reported that 22 states had waivers in place that allowed them  to collect data for only the three new common measures; 10 of these states  were granted waivers recently in program year 2006 and two of them in  program year 2005.  While the new measures may give states more  flexibility in how they measure youths’ progress, it may be too early to  assess whether these new measures have been incorporated into contracts  with local programs in ways that result in reduced incentives for programs  to select higher-performing youth.
section_title: Federal Grant Requirements That Vary across Programs Can Pose Challenges
paragraphs: Local program directors that received multiple federal grants from  different agencies expressed difficulty in working across varying reporting  requirements, funding cycles, and eligibility requirements. (See fig. 10.) To  a lesser extent, these program directors also experienced challenges  working across varying program goals and sharing information about their  clients that participate in multiple federal grants.
Varying reporting requirements. Directors of 17 of the 19 local  programs we reviewed that received more than one federal grant stated  that reconciling varying reporting requirements presented at least some  challenge. One program director explained that each of the program’s  federal funding sources has its own management information system,  but they all require similar information, causing staff to spend a  significant amount of time inputting nearly identical data elements into  separate data collection systems.
Varying funding cycles. Fifteen program directors reported at least  some challenge in managing grants that span different funding cycles.
Even within the same federal agency, grants can have different fiscal  year schedules and different grant durations. For example, among the  large workforce programs, workforce investment boards often award  1-year WIA contracts to local programs, and YouthBuild is now a 3-year  grant. Working across differing funding cycles and grant years can  make it difficult for programs to plan for the future.
Differing eligibility requirements. Directors of 13 local programs  reported that they face challenges reconciling differing eligibility  requirements. For example, grants from HHS and the Department of  Housing and Urban Development to support and house homeless youth  use different definitions of homelessness and varying age criteria,  which can make it difficult for a local program that depends on both  sources of funding. Some workforce grants fund youth less than 21  years of age and others fund up to 24 years of age, making it especially  challenging for local programs to combine funding sources.
section_title: To Address the Various Needs of Disconnected Youth, Federal Agencies Have Intensified Efforts to Coordinate across Youth- Serving Programs
paragraphs: Recognizing that services addressing the various needs of disconnected  youth fall under the jurisdictions of multiple agencies, federal agencies  have intensified efforts to coordinate across the array of youth-serving  programs. Our past work has highlighted the need for federal  collaboration given the multiple demands and limited resources of the  federal government. As we noted in our previous work on multiple youth  programs, enhanced coordination at the federal level can lead to more  efficient use of resources and a more integrated service delivery approach  at the local program level. Related to disconnected youth in particular,  the federal officials we spoke with highlighted the ongoing coordination  efforts of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency  Prevention (CCJJDP), led by Justice, and the Shared Youth Vision  initiative, led by Labor, among other collaborative efforts.
The CCJJDP, which was authorized in 1974 by the Juvenile Justice and  Delinquency Prevention Act, coordinates federal juvenile delinquency  programs. Among its responsibilities, the council examines how  programs can be coordinated among federal, state, and local  governments to better serve at-risk youth. The CCJJDP, which meets  on a quarterly basis, is composed of nine federal agency members,  including those from Education, Labor, and HHS, and nine nonfederal  members, who are juvenile justice practitioners. In recent years, the  council has broadened its focus to other at-risk youth and is seeking to  implement some of the 2003 White House Task Force  recommendations, including the following: (1) improving coordination  of mentoring programs, (2) developing a unified protocol for federal  best practices clearinghouses, (3) building a rigorous and unified  disadvantaged youth research agenda, (4) improving data collection on  the well-being of families, (5) increasing parents’ involvement in federal  youth programs, (6) targeting youth in public care, (7) targeting youth  with multiple risk factors, and (8) expanding mentoring programs to  special target groups. A Justice official said one project under way  involves researching best practices for federal collaborative efforts to  prepare a tool kit to assist federal agencies in their ongoing youth  coordination efforts.
The Shared Youth Vision initiative emerged in response to the 2003  White House Task Force recommendations, which cited a lack of  communication, coordination, and collaboration among federal  agencies that provide services to the nation’s neediest youth, and out of  the CCJJDP. It involves officials from Labor, Education, HHS, Justice;  the Departments of Transportation, Agriculture, Housing and Urban  Development; the Corporation for National and Community Service;  and the Social Security Administration. Its mission is to serve as a  catalyst at the national, state, and local levels to strengthen  coordination, communication, and collaboration among youth-serving  agencies to support the neediest youth in their healthy transition to  adult roles. Labor officials we spoke with see this initiative as a way to  more holistically support youth who come to the attention of various  related social service systems, in order to reinforce the effectiveness of  each intervention. They also said that the initiative can help make local  youth programs more aware of other services available in their  communities, such as mental health or substance abuse treatment  services that youth may need. One senior HHS official noted that the  initiative can be a powerful way to extend federal partnerships into  communities, and another official observed that the initiative has led to  better coordination of resources among agencies for juvenile justice  programming, mentoring, and youth aging out of foster care. To date,  the initiative has sponsored several regional forums convening state-  and local-level officials from various agencies to share information and  discuss better ways to work together to serve youth. In response to  state interest in continuing these efforts, Labor awarded grants ranging  from $27,500 to $116,000 to 16 competitively selected states to help the  states develop strategic plans to connect their systems that serve youth  at the state and local levels. For example, Florida is using this initiative  to bring together the state Department of Juvenile Justice, local school  districts, and community-based organizations to create a one-stop  prevention and intervention system for court-involved youth on  probation.
Several federal agencies have undertaken initiatives to improve  coordination among specific programs or programs serving specific  subpopulations. For example, Education and HHS are cosponsoring a  4-year program to offer long-term support to youth with serious  emotional disorders and emerging serious mental illness. Through the  Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative, HHS, Education, and Justice  are collaborating to reduce violence and drug abuse in schools and  communities. Working through the CCJJDP, HHS’s Family and Youth  Services Bureau and the Corporation for National and Community  Service (an independent federal agency) have instituted the Federal  Mentoring Council to coordinate mentoring efforts for disadvantaged  youth across eight federal agencies. In addition, since 2005, in an effort  to provide stronger support to local partnerships working with youth,  several federal agencies, including HHS, Labor, Education, and Justice,  have created a Web site that provides interactive tools to assist  communities to form effective partnerships, assess community assets,  map local and federal resources, and search for evidence-based  programs to meet the needs of youth, including disconnected youth.
In addition to these ongoing efforts, Congress in 2006 enacted legislation  creating the Federal Youth Development Council with the task—within 2  years—of issuing final recommendations designed to lead to improved  coordination and assessment of federal youth programs. However, the  council has not been convened. The council is to include members from  HHS, Education, Labor, Justice, and several other federal entities, as well  as other members as appointed by the President, with the Secretary of  HHS serving as the chairperson. The authorizing legislation provides for  the council to terminate after meeting at least quarterly for 2 years and  issuing a final report. Council duties include several related to finding  ways to better facilitate the coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness of  federal programs and promote high-quality research and evaluation of  youth services and supports. The final report is to include, among other  items, an assessment of the needs of youth, especially those in  disadvantaged situations, and of those who work with youth; a summary  of a plan for quantifiable goals and objectives for federal programs that  assist disadvantaged youth; and recommendations for ways to coordinate  and improve information sharing among the various federal programs and  agencies serving youth, as well as for ways to better integrate and  coordinate youth policies at all levels of government. The legislation also  specified that the council should coordinate its efforts with existing  interagency coordination entities in order to complement and not  duplicate efforts. Some assert that the council could reduce duplication of  effort by agencies and working at cross-purposes and lead to a stronger  emphasis at the federal level on youth development. Funding was not  appropriated to the council for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. HHS did not  seek funding for the council in the fiscal year 2008 President’s budget.  HHS has said that the CCJJDP, of which HHS is a member, has begun to  address some of the objectives and goals proposed for the council.  In  addition, on February 7, 2008, the President issued an executive order to  establish an Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs. Under the  order, HHS would lead this effort to coordinate among relevant federal,  private, and nongovernment entities; facilitate the development of a  federal Web site on youth; and encourage high standards for assessing  program impact.
Due to the relationships established through some of these ongoing formal  efforts, officials told us that they now more routinely talk to their  counterparts in other agencies. For example, Labor officials told us that  they now contact stakeholders in other agencies as a matter of course and  as issues arise, and that this practice marks a change from prior years.  Similarly, a Justice official stated that Justice staff now consider  contacting officials in other agencies to get their expertise and input when  awarding grants, recognizing that they are serving some of the same  populations. While officials spoke highly of these coordination efforts,  some officials pointed to the importance of sustained attention at the  appropriate levels to help ensure the longevity of these efforts. More  specifically, one official noted that turnover in agency staff, especially  among political appointees, can hinder long-term progress and suggested  that assigning high-level career officials as point persons at each agency  could be a way to facilitate this coordination and strengthening existing  coordinating bodies.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Preparing disconnected youth to become self-sufficient adults is an  important responsibility for all levels of government. The government  bears some of the costs for youth who have difficulty becoming self- sufficient, and who may instead commit crimes, become incarcerated, and  utilize public systems for assistance. However, with adequate support,  disconnected youth may be able to obtain the skills needed to make the  transition to adulthood and ultimately participate fully in society,  including in the workforce. Our research found that many successful  locally operated programs serving disconnected youth still struggle to  access services and opportunities for youth in their communities that can  help these young people meet their needs and achieve educational and  employment goals. While all levels of government can help to assist this  population, the federal government plays an important role by providing  funding, oversight, and technical assistance to support locally operated  programs serving disconnected youth. In addition, ongoing and relatively  new coordination efforts at the federal level hold potential for promoting  more holistic service delivery to youth while also ensuring more efficient  use of federal resources, although it is too early to know the impact these  efforts may have on local programs serving youth. Sustained attention and  leadership from agencies at appropriate levels will be needed to support  such coordination efforts and help them endure, while at the same time  minimizing unwarranted duplication among the coordination efforts  themselves.
Federal agencies also play an important role in holding programs  accountable for meeting performance goals, although the pursuit of such  goals can sometimes lead to unintended consequences. As a result, it is  important to understand all the ways in which rewarding and sanctioning  performance can change behavior at the local program level. For example,  local program directors receiving WIA Youth funds told us that meeting  the seven current performance measures within 1-year contracts provides  incentives for the programs to serve youth participants who may quickly  achieve desired performance goals within the specified time frames,  potentially leaving behind youth with the most challenges to successful  outcomes. This potentially means that one of the larger federal funding  sources that can be used to assist disconnected youth may discourage  local efforts from serving them. While the new common measures, if  enacted, may help address this issue, it is important that all workforce  investment boards understand how to develop long-term contracts for  local programs that avoid discouraging them from serving youth facing  increased challenges. Labor has also identified this as a concern and has  taken some initial steps to address this issue. However, unless Labor  works more with boards to ensure they have the information they need for  effective contract development, local programs may continue to lack  adequate incentives to work with lower-skilled youth who could greatly  benefit from their services.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve implementation of the WIA Youth Activities program, we  recommend that the Secretary of Labor work with states and workforce  investment boards to better ensure they have the information and  guidance needed to develop and implement contracts that allow local  programs to serve youth who are in need of more assistance than others  while still achieving performance goals. This could include (1) working  with workforce investment boards to identify and understand the  incentives or constraints that discourage boards from structuring  contracts with local programs that would assist their efforts to serve  lower-skilled youth, (2) issuing guidance—based on this input—that  provides specific examples of ways to develop contracts with local service  providers that allow them to serve youth at varying skill levels, and (3)  providing technical assistance to support the implementation of this  guidance.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Labor, HHS, Justice, and Education  for review and comment. Labor agreed with our recommendation, and  indicated it will work with workforce investment boards to identify  constraints, issue guidance to the workforce investment system in the  spring of 2008 on ways to develop contracts that allow programs to  successfully serve youth at varying skill levels, and provide technical  assistance to support the implementation of the guidance. Labor’s written  comments are reproduced in appendix IV; we incorporated technical  comments it provided where appropriate. HHS provided additional  information about a Web site available to communities to provide them  support for their efforts to help youth, including disconnected youth, and  we have added this information to the report. HHS’s written comments are  reproduced in appendix V; it also provided technical comments that we  incorporated where appropriate. Education provided technical comments  only, which we also incorporated where appropriate. Justice had no  comments on the draft report.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its  issue date. At that time we will send copies of this report to the Secretaries  of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and the Attorney  General; relevant congressional committees; and other interested parties.  We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the  report will be made available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your  staff have any questions about this report. Other contacts and major  contributors are listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: List of Local Programs Interviewed
paragraphs: An asterisk indicates programs we visited in-person. In-person interviews  included a tour of the facilities and meeting with youth participants.
Key federal funding source(s)
Calif.
Assists out-of-school youth to complete  their high school education while exploring  and preparing to enter employment in a  growth industry career ladder in  collaboration with a network of programs  and service providers.
WIA (Labor)
Tex.
Helps young people transition into self- sufficient adults through education, job  training, and community service.
National and Community  Service)
YouthBuild (Labor)
WIA (Labor)
Education Act, Titles I, II, III, IV,  and V (Education)
Fl.
Provides a residential program that focuses  on vocational education and life skills  training, as well as offers a full range of  academic courses; diploma options,  including GED; and college selection  services.
Education Act, Title I  (Education)
Md.
Provides educational and occupational  training to Baltimore City youth.
WIA (Labor)
Calif.
Promotes citizenship and builds a civil  society by creating educational models that  incorporate service as a way of learning.
Md.
Engages out-of-school youth and high  school students through education,  community revitalization, and workforce  development programs.
National and Community  Service)
YouthBuild (Labor)
WIA (Labor)
Calif.
Supports youth in their transition from  foster care to successful adulthood through  a supportive housing program, an  academic enrichment program, counseling,  youth community center, and collaboration  with other organizations. (Department of Housing and  Urban Development)
Grant (Department of Housing  and Urban Development)
Tenn.
Aims to help youth aging out of foster care  to have access to education, employment,  health care, housing, and a place to call  home.
No federal funding   Key federal funding source(s)
Ariz.
Provides a nurturing environment for  Guadalupe youth and young adults that  combines education, life and leadership  skills, and job readiness and community  services.
National and Community  Service)
YouthBuild (Labor)
N.Y.
Works to enhance the quality of life for  children and families in some of New York  City’s most devastated neighborhoods.
N.C.
Establishes transitional living program  participants as the leaseholders of their  own market-rate apartments in order to  address the issue of housing after  graduation from its transitional living  programs.
WIA (Labor)  (HHS)  (Department of Housing and  Urban Development)
Job Corps (Labor) life skills training resulting in long-term  quality employment.
Calif.
Trains underserved youth and young adults  in the crafts and technicians skills of the  entertainment industry.
Youth Offender Initiative (Labor)
Oh.
Teaches high school dropouts skills in one  of four fields: construction technology,  health care, manufacturing technology, and  computer technology.
National and Community  Service)
YouthBuild (Labor)
Youth Offender Initiative (Labor)
Families (HHS)
Ore.
Empowers youth who were previously  homeless, pregnant, or parenting to  support themselves and work on fulfilling  educational and employment needs,  integrating a “self-governance” model that  incorporates resident participation in all  program decision-making processes.
Housing and Urban  Development)  (HHS)
Ill.
Helps young men and women from low- income families become a part of the  economic mainstream and, in the process,  provide the business community with  motivated job-ready workers. (Education)
WIA (Labor)
Ore.
Provides Portland youth with vocational  and academic programs and offers  opportunities for students seeking an  alternative to the traditional high school  model.
Education Act, Title I  (Education)
Technical Education Act  (Education)
Key federal funding source(s)
San Francisco  Calif.
Provides a range of housing options—from  immediate emergency shelter to permanent  supportive housing—in addition to essential  wraparound services that offer young  people the resources and skills they need  to exit street life.
McKinney-Vento Act (HHS)  (HHS)
Ryan White Care Act, Title IV  (HHS)
Ariz.
Addresses the needs of out-of-school youth  by providing an opportunity to create public  art while earning a GED.
WIA (Labor)
D.C.
To offer clear guidance and direction  toward a career path to youth who do not  have marketable skills or who have  dropped out of school.
WIA (Labor)
Oh.
Provides safe, secure living environments  for homeless youth and adults, and assists  them with developing the skills necessary  to live self-sufficiently and responsibly. (HHS)  (Department of Housing and  Urban Development)  (Department of Housing and  Urban Development)
D.C.
Creates learning environments in low-  income communities in which teens,  particularly those who have not succeeded  in traditional schools, can develop the  academic, social, and employment skills  they need to build rewarding lives and  promote positive change in their  communities.
WIA (Labor) identification of their skills, goals, and self- confidence through career exploration,  employment training, and postsecondary  planning in collaboration with partnering  organizations.
Winston Salem  N.C.
Helps young men and women develop  workplace and life skills to make them  successful contributing members of the  community.
WIA (Labor)
Tenn.
Addresses the needs of youth in crisis  through housing and other support  services. (HHS)
Ore.
Aims to retain youth who have not fared  well in traditional academic settings and  those who have already dropped out, as  well as supporting their transition to college  and employment.
WIA (Labor)
Grant (Department of Housing  and Urban Development)
Key federal funding source(s)
Wis.
Serves at-risk youth, primarily high school  dropouts and offenders, through a paid  opportunity to learn basic work skills,  improve basic academic skills, prepare for  the high school equivalency examination or  complete diplomas, secure and retain  employment and/or postsecondary  placement at the end of training, and  contribute to the community.
National and Community  Service)
Grant (Department of Housing  and Urban Development)
Program (Department of  Housing and Urban  Development)
WIA (Labor)
Ore.
Promotes student success and readiness  for an adult learning environment by  grouping students into learning  communities for their first term, offering  intensive literacy development, maintaining  rigorous academic standards, and  providing individualized support.
Tenn.
Strives to improve educational levels, teach  vocational skills, and reduce recidivism  among adjudicated youth while addressing  the home-building industry’s need for entry- level workers by incorporating hands-on  training in the construction trade with  academic instruction.
Youth Offender Grant (Labor)
Tex.
Offers older youth who have nowhere to  go, no family, no money, and nowhere to  live the opportunity not only to learn how to  live independently, but to finish their  education, find meaningful work, and  become productive citizens. (Department of Housing and  Urban Development)  (HHS)
D.C.
Strives to improve the lives of runaway,  homeless, neglected, and at-risk youth and  their families in the Washington area by  providing shelter, counseling, life skills  training, and positive youth development  activities.
Assistance Act (HHS)
Tex.
Promotes and sustains communication  among community partners to leverage  resources and supportive services for  young adults aging out of the foster care  system.
Ill.
Assists youth who are homeless to  permanently leave the streets, secure  stable housing, and build self-sufficient,  satisfying lives. (HHS)
Key federal funding source(s)
N.J.
Provides life skills management, job  readiness skills training, education tutorial  and academic progress assistance, and  community service and job opportunities to  youth living in Camden County who are at  risk of adjudication through the juvenile  justice system.
Initiative (Labor)
WIA (Labor)
M.D.
Helps City youth receive the education and  career skills training needed to become  successful adults.
WIA (Labor)
Youth Opportunity (Labor)
Mass.  YO Boston is a citywide program that helps  young people on the wrong path make a  turn toward a positive, self-sufficient future  by connecting them with opportunities and  employment.
Ill.
Offers young people an opportunity to build  their futures and their communities through  education, leadership development, job  training, and the rehabilitation and  production of affordable housing.
National and Community  Service)
YouthBuild (Labor)
Economic Development  Program (HHS)  program (U.S. Department of  Agriculture)
Calif.
Provides training, job placement, access to  education, and comprehensive support  services to enhance the employment  opportunities of underserved youth.
National and Community  Service)
WIA (Labor)
YouthBuild (Labor)
Mo.
Offers homeless youth opportunities to  learn independent living skills, work toward  completing their education, and become  self-sufficient members of the community. (HHS)
section_title: Appendix II: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our review focused on (1) the characteristics of programs that provide  services to disconnected youth, (2) the key elements of locally operated  programs that program directors attribute to their success in reconnecting  youth to education and employment, and (3) the challenges that are  involved in implementing and operating these programs and how federal  agencies are helping to address these challenges. For the purposes of this  engagement, we defined disconnected youth as individuals between the  ages of 14 and 24 who have dropped out of school and are not employed,  or do not have supportive social networks, which may help youth access  employment or educational opportunities. This definition is intended to  include youth who are close to aging out of the foster care system, in the  juvenile justice system, homeless and runaway youth, and youth who have  dropped out of school. We did not focus on prevention efforts, such as  school-focused dropout prevention programs, or on youth with disabilities  or migrant youth, although prevention efforts may be part of programs we  reviewed, and youth with disabilities and migrant youth may be among the  disconnected youth these programs serve.
To obtain background information on the role the federal government  plays in assisting programs that serve disconnected youth, we identified  four primary federal agencies as having programs for this population: the  Departments of Labor, HHS, Justice, and Education. We selected these  agencies based on their legislative mandate to administer relevant federal  programs, our previous work, and reports from the Congressional  Research Service and the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged  Youth, and discussions with federal officials. However, other federal  agencies, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development and  the Corporation for National and Community Service, may also have  programs that serve this population. We talked with agency officials to  identify the key programs within these four agencies that serve  disconnected youth. We reviewed the relevant laws, regulations,  appropriations, and documents of 15 key federal programs as well as  coordinating bodies involved with assisting disconnected youth, and  synthesized information from interviews with appropriate federal officials.
To obtain information on the types of programs that provide services to  disconnected youth and to understand the key elements that contribute to  the success of locally operated programs and the challenges they face, we  interviewed directors of local programs identified by agency officials and  11 experts on youth issues as successfully helping disconnected youth  reach educational or employment goals. We selected experts based on  their understanding of and range of perspectives on youth issues as well as  their knowledge of efforts under way at the local level. Specifically, we  identified them through reviews of key studies, participation in the White  House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, and other conferences  focused on youth issues. In speaking with the experts, we asked them to  identify other experts in the field who were working on disconnected  youth issues, and we reviewed our list with three of the experts to ensure  we had a comprehensive list. We asked the experts and agency officials to  identify local programs that could serve as examples or models for  expansion or replication that represent various approaches or  subpopulations and geographic diversity, including programs in both  urban and rural locations. We also asked them to indicate the specific  reasons why they were recommending the program as successful and  whether evaluation results or outcome data were available for the local  effort. However, many noted that rigorous program evaluations are not  readily available. Likewise, when we asked programs we interviewed  whether they had conducted impact evaluations of their programs, few  had completed evaluations. We did not review any available evaluations in  determining whether to include a program in our review.
Out of 100 programs that were identified, we selected 39 local programs to  include in our review. We selected a mix of programs in 16 states and the  District of Columbia that provided different types of services, such as  transitional living programs, employment skills training programs, and  alternative education programs; that targeted different subpopulations;  and that represented geographic diversity, including a mix of urban and  rural locations. (See app. I for a list of the programs we interviewed.) Most  of the programs received federal funding, but some relied primarily on  state, local, or private funding sources. For organizations with multiple  programs focused on disadvantaged youth, we asked the executive  director to identify the single program that had the most long-standing  success in reconnecting youth to education and employment.
We interviewed directors of these programs using a standard set of  questions. We asked directors to provide information on the key elements  they thought made the program successful, implementing and operating  challenges, gaps in services provided in their community, funding sources,  and federal grants and policies. Prior to the interviews, we reviewed our  list of closed-ended and open-ended questions with internal and external  experts and conducted two pretests to ensure the questions were  appropriate and clear. To use resources most efficiently, we conducted in- person interviews with 19 programs in six locations where there were a  number of programs to visit, that enabled us to have broad geographic  coverage, and where we could see examples of the different types of  programs assisting disconnected youth. Site visit locations included  Baltimore, Maryland; Boston and Brockton, Massachusetts; Nashville,  Tennessee; Portland, Oregon; San Francisco and Oakland, California; and  Washington, D.C. On our site visits, we toured facilities and met with  youth at the programs we visited to learn about their experiences in the  program. In addition, we spoke with representatives from various citywide  initiatives in Baltimore, Boston, and San Francisco to gain an  understanding of their efforts at cross-system collaboration to serve  disconnected youth. We completed the remaining interviews by phone. We  conducted this performance audit from May 2007 to February 2008 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix III: Key Federal Grant Programs That Serve Disconnected Youth
subsections: section_title: Federal grant
paragraphs: To assist eligible youth who need and can  benefit from an intensive program, operated  in a group setting in residential and  nonresidential centers, to become more  responsible, employable, and productive  citizens.
To make available to youth activities in  workforce training, education attainment,  community involvement, leadership  development, and supports while in the  program and for follow-up services not less  than 12 months after program completion.
School dropouts ages 16 to 24,  who are members of a low-  income family, in foster care,  or are youth offenders,  disabled, migrant, or children  of incarcerated parents.
To increase employability and employment of  youth offenders, gang members, and youth at  risk of court or gang involvement.
All 14 to 21-year-olds residing  in designated impoverished  areas  (Program  authorization expired  in fiscal year 2003  and funding has not  been appropriated for  the program)
To provide education, employment, and  leadership development activities and  supports for youth in high-poverty  neighborhoods to increase their long-term  employment.
To identify youth likely to remain in foster  care until age 18 and assist these youth up to  age 21 to make the transition to self- sufficiency by providing housing and  educational and vocational services, among  other services.
To provide comprehensive services for youth  in at-risk situations and their families. The  program supports emergency shelter and  services and street-based education and  outreach to young people, and provides older  homeless youth with longer-term housing and  assistance to develop the skills and  resources to live independently.
To provide adult education and literacy  services, including workplace literacy  services, family literacy services, and English  literacy and civic education programs.
To assist and encourage incarcerated youth  to acquire functional literacy, and life and job  skills through the pursuit of postsecondary  education certificates, associate of arts  degrees, and bachelor’s degrees.
To ensure that homeless children, including  preschoolers and youth, have equal access  to free and appropriate public education.  Among other things, this grant also supports  an office for the coordination of the education  of homeless children and youth in each state.
To improve educational services for  neglected and delinquent children and youth  in state-run institutions for juveniles and in  adult correctional institutions.
To support programs that will develop, test,  or demonstrate promising new initiatives that  may prevent, control, or reduce juvenile  delinquency.
To support the planning, establishment,  operation, coordination, and evaluation of  projects for the development of more  effective juvenile delinquency programs and  improved juvenile justice systems.
To strengthen their juvenile justice systems  and encourage juveniles to be accountable  for their actions.
To support local projects and activities for  youth who have had contact with the juvenile  justice system or who are likely to have  contact with the juvenile justice system.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Gale Harris (Assistant Director) and Kate Blumenreich (Analyst-in-Charge)  managed all aspects of the assignment. Kim Siegal and Ashanta Williams  made significant contributions to this report in all aspects of the work.  Tiffany Boiman, George Erhart, Adrienne Fernandes, Jessikah Foulk,  Tamara Fucile, Claire Li, and Flavio Menasce also made contributions to  the report. Susannah Compton contributed to writing this report. Luann  Moy provided key technical support, and Jessica Botsford provided legal  support. Avrum Ashery developed the graphics for the report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: African American Children in Foster Care: Additional HHS Assistance  Needed to Help States Reduce the Proportion in Care. GAO-07-816.  Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2007.
YouthBuild Program: Analysis of Outcome Data Needed to Determine  Long-Term Benefits. GAO-07-82. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2007.
Child Welfare: Improving Social Service Program, Training, and  Technical Assistance Information Would Help Address Longstanding  Service-Level and Workforce Challenges. GAO-07-75. Washington, D.C.:  October 6, 2006.
Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but  Labor Needs to Make Data Available. GAO-06-53. Washington, D.C.:  December 9, 2005.
Foster Youth: HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services and  Monitoring of States’ Independent Living Programs. GAO-05-25.  Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve  Quality of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services.  GAO-04-308. Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004.
Juvenile Justice: OJJDP Reporting Requirements for Discretionary and  Formula Grantees and Concerns About Evaluation Studies. GAO-02-23.  Washington, D.C.: October 30, 2001.
At-Risk Youth: School-Community Collaborations Focus on Improving  Student Outcomes. GAO-01-66. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2000.
Foster Care: Effectiveness of Independent Living Services Unknown.  GAO/HEHS-00-13. Washington, D.C.: November 5, 1999.
Foster Care: Challenges in Helping Youths Live Independently.   GAO/T-HEHS-99-121. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 1999.
At-Risk and Delinquent Youths: Fiscal Year 1998 Programs.   GAO/HEHS-99-88R. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 1999.
Job Corps: Links with Labor Market Improved but Vocational Training  Performance Overstated. GAO/HEHS-99-15. Washington, D.C.: November  4, 1998.
At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Programs Lack Coordinated  Federal Effort. GAO/T-HEHS-98-38. Washington, D.C.: November 5, 1997.
At-Risk and Delinquent Youths: Fiscal Year 1996 Programs.   GAO/HEHS-97-211R. Washington, D.C.: September 2, 1997.