Job Corps: Where Participants Are Recruited, Trained, and Placed in Jobs
Released: 1996-07-17T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Job Corps was established as a national employment and training program in 1964 to provide severely disadvantaged youth with a wide range of services, including basic/remedial education, vocational training, and social skills instruction, usually at residential facilities. It remains one of the few federally run programs, unlike many other employment training programs that are federally funded but are operated by state or local governments. Job Corps centers are operated by public or private organizations under contract with Labor.

Recent legislative proposals to consolidate much of the nation’s job training system into block grants to the states has produced debate on the relationship between Job Corps and the states, including whether responsibility for Job Corps should be delegated to the states. A 1995 Senate-passed bill retained Job Corps as a separate federally administered program; a 1995 House-passed bill was silent about the Job Corps’ future as a separate entity. A conference committee is currently attempting to resolve the differences between the two bills. The Senate bill proposes several changes to better integrate Job Corps with state and local workforce development initiatives, including requiring center operators to submit operating plans to Labor, through their state governors; requiring center operators to give nearby communities advance notice of any center changes that could affect them; and permitting the governor to recommend individuals to serve on panels to select center operators. Labor officials stated that the program is already playing a proactive role in ensuring that the National Job Corps program works more closely with state and local employment, education, and training programs.

According to Job Corps officials, the program has received funding to open nine additional centers—five in program year 1996 and four in program year 1997—all of which will be located in states with existing centers.

Job Corps’ nine regional directors are responsible for the day-to-day administration of the program at the centers located within their geographic boundaries. Included among their responsibilities are the recruitment of youth for program participation and the assignment of enrollees to one of the program centers. Recruitment is typically carried out by private contractors, the centers, or state employment services under contract with the regional directors. The Job Corps legislation provides some broad guidance with respect to assigning enrollees to centers. It states that participants are to be assigned to the center closest to their residence, except for good cause. Exceptions can include avoiding undue delay in assigning participants to a center, meeting educational or training needs, or ensuring efficiency and economy in the operation of the program.

The program currently enrolls participants aged 16 to 24 who are severely disadvantaged, in need of additional education or training, and living in a disruptive environment. Our June 1995 report contained an analysis of characteristics of those terminating from Job Corps in program year 1993 showing that over two-thirds of the program’s participants faced multiple barriers to employment. Enrollments are voluntary, and training programs are open entry, open exit, and self-paced, allowing participants to enroll throughout the year and to progress at their own pace. On average, participants spend about 8 months in the program but can stay up to 2 years.

In addition to basic education and vocational training courses, each of the centers provides participants with a range of services including counseling, health care (including dental), room and board, and recreational activities. Skills training is offered in a variety of vocational areas, including business occupations, automotive repair, construction trades, and health occupations. These courses are taught by center staff, private contractors, or instructors provided under contracts with national labor and business organizations. In addition, Job Corps offers, at a limited number of centers, advanced training in various occupations including food service, clerical, and construction trades. This training is designed to provide additional instruction to participants from centers across the nation who have demonstrated the ability to perform at a higher skill level.

One feature that makes Job Corps different from other youth training programs is its residential component. About 90 percent of the participants enrolled each year live at the centers, allowing services to be provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The premise for boarding participants is that most come from a disruptive environment and, therefore, can benefit from receiving education and training in a new setting where a variety of support services are available around the clock.

Participation in Job Corps can lead to placement in a job or enrollment in further training or education. It can also lead to educational achievements such as earning a high school diploma and gaining reading or math skills. However, the primary outcome for Job Corps participants is employment; about 64 percent of those leaving the program get jobs.

Number and Size of Job Corps Centers Determine State Capacity

Job Corps program capacity differs widely among the states because the number of centers in each state differs, and the size of individual centers within the states varies substantially. Job Corps centers are located in 46 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico (see fig. 1). Among states with centers, the number ranges from one center in each of 19 states; to six centers each in California, Kentucky, and Oregon; to seven in New York State.

In-state capacity differs according to the number of centers in each state, the size of individual centers, and the average time participants spend in the program. For example, Kentucky’s centers can serve 6,373 participants annually, nearly double the number that can be served by centers in either California (3,477) or New York (3,252); Idaho has only one center and a capacity of about 200. (See app. IV for a listing of the capacity within each state with a Job Corps center.) As shown in figure 2, Job Corps centers in 9 states had the capacity to serve over 2,000 Job Corps participants annually, whereas centers in 10 states could serve fewer than 500 participants annually.

Job Corps Participants Were Assigned to Out-of-State Centers

Nationwide, 41 percent of the approximately 64,000 program year 1994 Job Corps participants (about 44 percent in program year 1993) who lived in states with Job Corps centers were assigned to centers outside their home state. Openings at centers located in their states of residence were often filled by participants from other states. Those participants assigned out of state travel greater distances than those who are assigned to an in-state center. Yet, even when assigned out of state, participants tend to stay within the Labor region in which they reside. Regardless of where they are assigned, participants tend to be employed in their state of residence.

Extent of Out-of-State Assignments Differed Among States

Considerable variation existed among the states in the extent to which Job Corps participants were assigned to out-of-state centers (see fig. 3). In program year 1994, the majority of Job Corps participants from 15 states were assigned to centers outside their home state. For example, more than three-quarters of the Job Corps participants from Colorado, Illinois, South Carolina, and Wisconsin were assigned to centers in states other than the one in which they lived. On the other hand, less than a quarter of the youths in 16 states were assigned to out-of-state Job Corps centers. For example, less than 15 percent of the Job Corps participants from Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York were assigned to centers outside their home state. (App. V lists the states included in each of the percentage groupings shown in fig. 3.)

Percentage of Participants Assigned Out of State While substantial numbers of participants are assigned to out-of-state centers, the vast majority of all participants are assigned to centers within the Job Corps regions in which they reside. Nearly 95 percent of program year 1994 participants (92 percent in program year 1993) were assigned to a Job Corps center that was located in the same region as their residence. In 7 of Labor’s 10 regions, over 90 percent of Job Corps program participants were residents of the regions in which they were assigned, and in the remaining 3 regions, over 80 percent were regional residents. A portion of the remaining 5 percent who were transferred outside their region were assigned under agreements between regional directors to send participants to centers in other regions. For example, the director in region II said that he has an agreement to send approximately 150 youths to region I and 250 youths to region IV. The director in region IX assigns 400 to 600 youths to the Clearfield, Utah, center in region VIII and another 200 youths to region X.

Out-of-State Assignments Are Distant

Job Corps participants assigned to centers outside their state of residence were sent to centers that were, on average, over 4 times as distant as the in-state center closest to a participant’s residence. For the approximately 26,000 youths leaving the program in program year 1994 who were assigned to out-of-state Job Corps centers, we compared the distances from their home to (1) the center to which they were assigned and (2) the in-state center nearest their residence. In 92 percent of the cases where participants were assigned out of state, there was an in-state Job Corps center closer to the participant’s home. On average, participants assigned to out-of-state centers traveled about 390 miles, whereas the closest in-state center was about 90 miles from their residence. For example, about 2,200 Florida residents were assigned to Job Corps centers in other states, traveling on average about 640 miles to attend those centers. In contrast, these participants would have traveled, on average, only about 70 miles had they been assigned to the nearest Florida center.

Residents Sent Out of State While Nonresidents Are Brought In

We noted that while residents in many states were being assigned to out-of-state centers, a substantial number of nonresidents were being brought in and enrolled at in-state centers. For example, in program year 1994, of the approximately 1,000 Arkansas residents in Job Corps, about 600 (or 60 percent) were assigned to out-of-state centers. Yet, about 600 nonresidents were brought in to centers in Arkansas from other states. Similarly, in Georgia, 1,300 residents from that state were assigned to Job Corps centers located elsewhere, whereas about 1,900 individuals residing in other states were brought in to centers located in Georgia. Figure 4 shows states with large numbers (500 or more) of residents sent to out-of-state centers while large numbers of nonresidents were brought in-state. (App. VI provides, for each state, the number of nonresidents brought in from other states, as well as the number of residents sent to out-of-state centers, for program years 1994 and 1993.)

Proportion of Nonresidents Varies Among Centers

Assigning participants to Job Corps centers outside their state of residence resulted in wide variations in the number of nonresidents at individual Job Corps centers nationwide. The majority of participants served at about one-third of the centers were out-of-state residents. Overall, we found that in 38 of the 113 Job Corps centers operating in program year 1994, 50 percent or more of the participants resided outside the state in which the center was located (see fig. 5). Fifteen centers had 75 percent or more nonresidents enrolled during program year 1994, and the 9 centers with the most nonresidents (85 percent or more) were located in Kentucky (6 centers), California (1), Utah (1), and West Virginia (1). Because program capacity in Kentucky, Utah, and West Virginia exceeded in-state demand, large numbers of nonresidents attended centers in these states. California, on the other hand, had insufficient capacity. Nonetheless, the number of nonresidents at the California center may have been high because it provided advanced training for participants who previously had completed some basic level of training at centers across the nation. Forty-seven centers had less than 25 percent nonresidents enrolled, including 30 centers with less than 10 percent of their program participants coming from out of state.

Participants Employed in State of Residence

Regardless of where Job Corps participants were assigned, those who found jobs usually did so in their home state. Of the approximately 42,000 Job Corps participants who obtained jobs after leaving the program in 1994, about 83 percent found jobs in their state of residence (85 percent in program year 1993). Even those participants who were assigned to Job Corps centers outside their state of residence generally returned to their home states for employment. Specifically, of the 18,200 participants obtaining jobs after being trained in centers outside their state of residence, about 13,700 (75 percent) obtained those jobs in their home state (see fig. 6).

Reasons for Assigning Participants Out of State

Regional officials stated that substantial numbers of participants were assigned to centers out of state due, in part, to Labor’s desire to fully utilize centers. The other principal reason given was to satisfy participant preferences either to be assigned to a specific center or to be enrolled in a specific occupational training course.

According to Labor officials, full utilization of Job Corps centers was one of the principal reasons for assigning participants out of state. The Job Corps program does not routinely collect the reasons for out-of-state assignments and, therefore, we were unable to document the specific factors behind these decisions. However, we contacted Labor officials, including each of its nine regional directors—who are ultimately responsible for center assignments—as well as contractors responsible for 15 outreach/screening contracts, to determine what factors contributed to out-of-state assignments. For the most part, these officials stated that one of the reasons for not assigning participants to the center closest to their residence and, instead, to out-of-state centers was to ensure that centers were fully utilized. For example, they pointed out that many residents from Florida were assigned to centers in Kentucky; otherwise, centers in Kentucky would remain underutilized. A similar situation was cited with respect to participants from California assigned to a center in Utah that would otherwise be underutilized. In addition, Labor officials noted that participants were assigned to out-of-state centers to fill openings that occurred throughout the year because participants continuously leave the program due to the program’s open-entry, open-exit, self-paced format. Moreover, at any point, there may not be any state residents ready to enroll in the program.

Maintaining full capacity in Job Corps centers is one measurement Labor uses in evaluating regional director performance; Labor data indicate that, except for a portion of program year 1994, the program has operated near full capacity during the previous 3 program years. Vacancies can frequently occur at Job Corps centers because of the uneven distribution of program capacity in relation to demand for services, the continuous turnover of participants at individual centers, and the irregular flow of participants into the program. Labor officials said that in program year 1994, Job Corps had an average occupancy rate of about 91 percent programwide. Average occupancy rates at the regional level, in program year 1994, ranged from about 83 percent to 97 percent.

We found less evidence to support the other principal reason cited for assigning participants to distant centers—the need to satisfy participant preferences, either to attend a particular center or to receive training in a particular occupation. While the Job Corps data system does not provide information on the extent to which such preferences are considered when making assignments, we were able to gain some insight into the degree to which specific vocational offerings might explain out-of-state assignments. We analyzed the occupational training courses in which out-of-state participants were enrolled. We found that over two-thirds of these individuals were either enrolled in occupational courses commonly offered throughout the national network of Job Corps centers or were never enrolled in an occupational course at all. For example, about 13 percent of the participants sent to out-of-state centers were being trained in clerical positions (available at 91 centers), about 8 percent in food service (available at 94 centers), and 8 percent in health occupations (available at 72 centers). In addition, about 11 percent received no specific vocational offering after being assigned to an out-of-state center (see table 1). Thus, specialized training or uncommon occupational offerings do not appear to explain these out-of-state assignments. We were, however, unable to determine whether a training slot in the requested vocational area was available at the closest center when participants were assigned out of state.

Recent Emphasis on In-State Assignments

During our discussions with regional Job Corps officials, some said that they have recently begun to focus more on assigning participants to Job Corps centers that are located in the same state in which they reside. Region III officials incorporate in-state assignment goals into their outreach and screening contracts, and a March 1995 regional field instruction states that the region’s center assignment plan “now places greater emphasis on the assignment of youth to centers within their own state, or to centers within a closer geographical area.” Similarly, other regional officials told us that they are now placing greater emphasis on in-state assignment of youth because of increased congressional interest in having greater state involvement in the program.

Many States Have Sufficient Capacity to Meet In-State Demand for Job Corps Training

During program year 1994, the majority of states with Job Corps centers had sufficient capacity to handle virtually all the in-state demand (at least 90 percent of in-state participants) for Job Corps training, but this ability varied substantially among the states. We compared the demand for Job Corps services within each state with the total capacity of the centers located therein. We measured state demand in terms of the number of residents who participated in Job Corps, regardless of whether they attended a center within their state of residence or out of state.

Nationwide, 52,000 of the 64,000 Job Corps participants—81 percent (86 percent in program year 1993)—either were or could have been trained in centers in their home state. As shown in figure 7, a total of 27 states had sufficient capacity in their Job Corps centers to accommodate virtually all the program participants from those states, and another 12 states could meet at least 70 percent of the demand. (App. VII lists the states in each of the percentage groupings shown in fig. 7.)

We found substantial differences among states in the capacity of in-state centers to serve Job Corps participants from their state. For example, South Carolina had over 1,600 residents participating in Job Corps, but the centers in that state had the capacity to serve only about 440 participants. On the other hand, Kentucky had 485 residents in Job Corps, but had the capacity (6,373) to serve about 13 times that number of participants.

Although 81 percent of Job Corps participants in program year 1994 either were or could have been served in their state of residence, the remaining 19 percent (over 11,000 youths) lived in states whose centers lacked the capacity to serve all state residents enrolled in Job Corps. For example, centers in California, Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina each would have been unable to serve over 1,000 Job Corps participants in program year 1994 in their existing centers. Figure 8 shows (for those states where demand was higher than in-state capacity) the states with Job Corps centers that had a demand that exceeded capacity by 500 or more participants.

In addition, five states (Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Wyoming) did not have a Job Corps center in program year 1994. These states accounted for about another 1,400 participants who could not be served in their home state. On the other hand, the capacity in eight states was more than double the number of youths from their states in Job Corps. For example, Utah’s two centers could accommodate about 2,400 youths, but only about 700 state residents were in the program. Similarly, West Virginia’s centers had a capacity for about 1,100 youths, yet only about 300 West Virginia youths enrolled in Job Corps (see fig. 9).

Planned Expansion Will Increase Capacity in Some States

The Job Corps program’s plan to establish nine new centers over the next 2 years will provide some additional capacity that is needed in states with existing centers, but will increase capacity in three other states to about twice the in-state demand. In addition, a center opened in Connecticut (which had been without a Job Corps center) in May 1996 that will serve about 300 annually. Overall, this expansion will enable the program to serve an additional 4,000 youths in those states that had insufficient capacity. For example, planned centers in Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, and Tennessee will help those states address the shortage of available training opportunities for in-state residents, reducing the shortfall in those states from about 4,700 to 700. However, Job Corps is also planning to add centers in Maine, Massachusetts, and Michigan, providing these states with the capacity to serve nearly twice the number of state residents participating in Job Corps.

Agency Comments

In commenting on a draft of this report, Labor expressed some concerns with our presentation of certain information that it believed needed greater emphasis and with what it believed were factors we should have considered in carrying out our analysis.

For example, Labor said that our characterization of in-state demand was misleading. Furthermore, it said that we did not recognize the limited availability of advanced training and its impact when calculating distance for participants assigned out of state. We have clarified our definition of demand as used in this report and recalculated distance, excluding advanced training participants, which had no impact on our finding.

Labor also pointed out recent changes in program emphasis and provided some technical clarification. Labor’s comments, along with our responses, are printed in appendix IX.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; relevant congressional committees; and other interested parties. Copies will be made available to others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 512-7014 or Sigurd Nilsen at (202) 512-7003. Major contributors to this report include Dianne Murphy Blank, Jeremiah Donoghue, Thomas Medvetz, Arthur Merriam, and Wayne Sylvia.

Scope and Methodology

We designed our study to gather information on how Job Corps is currently operating in terms of where participants are recruited, trained, and placed. To do so, we analyzed Labor’s Job Corps participant data file and interviewed Job Corps officials and recruiting contractors.

Data Analysis

To analyze where Job Corps participants are recruited from, assigned for training, and placed in jobs, we used Labor’s Student Pay, Allotment and Management Information System (SPAMIS). Among other things, the database contains information on the placement and screening contractor for each participant. We analyzed data on Job Corps participants who left the program during program year 1994 (July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995), the most recent full year for which data were available. To help determine whether program year 1994 was a unique year with regard to participant assignment, we performed similar analyses on comparable data for program year 1993. Unless otherwise stated, however, all numbers cited in the report reflect program year 1994 data.

Our basic population consisted of all participants who left the program during program year 1994 from 113 Job Corps centers. There were 66,022 participants included in this population. Two Job Corps centers have since closed, but participants from these centers were included in our analysis. This basic population was used for the analysis of capacity and average length of stay. We eliminated participant files with missing information or for participants who resided in Puerto Rico or outside the United States. We also eliminated from our analyses those participants from states without Job Corps centers. This brought our analytic population to 64,060. Certain analyses dealt with subpopulations of the basic population. For example, for the analysis of where participants obtained jobs, only those 41,975 cases where the file indicated a job placement were used. For program year 1993, the file indicated that 35,116 participants obtained jobs.

To determine how far participants traveled when attending out-of-state centers, we calculated the straight-line distance from the participant’s residence to the last assigned out-of-state center. The distance was calculated using the centroid—or center—for the zip code of the participants’ residence at entry and for the Job Corps center attended. The 5-Digit Zip Code Inventory File—part of the Statistical Analysis System library—provided the centroid’s latitude and longitude. These latitude and longitude measures became the basis for the distance computations. To determine whether an in-state center was closer, we calculated the straight-line distance from the participant’s residence to the nearest Job Corps center located in the participant’s state of residence. We then compared this distance with the distance to the Job Corps center of assignment.

Our distance analysis was dependent upon having consistent address and zip code information for the participants’ residences and Job Corps centers, and the related longitude and latitude for those zip codes. Longitude and latitude data for locations outside the 50 states were not available. Thus, 989 program year 1994 participants from Puerto Rico were not included in the analysis. Another 680 participants were excluded from the analysis because either their zip code was not consistent with the state of residence information or they were missing state or zip code information. Because our focus for this analysis was on participants who lived in a state with a Job Corps center, we also excluded 1,434 participants who came from states that did not have Job Corps centers; these participants had to be assigned to out-of-state centers. This brought the total of the population for this analysis to 62,391 in program year 1994. This includes all participants regardless of the type of training program in which they participated. Table I.1 presents a summary of the subgroup sizes for analyses performed on program years 1994 and 1993 data.

Excluded participant files for missing information (61) (337)

Excluded participants not residing in United States, District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico (467) (444)

Total terminees in our population Total terminees in states without Job Corps centers (1,434) (1,670)

Total terminees in states with Job Corps centers Excluded participant files with longitude and latitude data unavailable (989) (940)

Excluded participant files with inconsistent or missing zip code data (680) (422)

To calculate the program year 1994 capacity of each Job Corps center, we used Labor’s listing of residential and nonresidential capacity at any one time (slots) for each Job Corps center and multiplied it by the average number of days in a year (365.25 days). We then divided that number by the average length of stay of program year 1994 terminees at that center. For example, the Carl D. Perkins Job Corps Center in Prestonsburg, Kentucky, had a stated capacity of 245 slots and a program year 1994 average length of stay of 236.56 days. We calculated the yearly capacity of the Perkins’ Center at 378 participants (245 times 365.25 divided by 236.56). On this basis, we performed center-by-center calculations and aggregated them to the state level to estimate a yearly capacity by state. To estimate in-state demand, we used all program participants from that state, regardless of where they were assigned, as a proxy measure. We recognize that this does not reflect total program demand, which would also include those who are eligible and interested in Job Corps but had not yet enrolled in the program.

Interviews With Officials

To obtain information on the process the Job Corps program uses to assign participants to centers, we interviewed Labor officials in the nine regional offices, as well as at headquarters. Using a semistructured interview protocol, we asked questions related to how participants are assigned to Job Corps centers, including the program’s policies and procedures for participant assignments, the responsibilities and documentation requirements for each level of oversight, and the assignment patterns for participants within the regions. Additionally, we asked questions based on the analysis of program year 1993 assignment information (because program year 1994 data were not yet available at the time) that showed the extent to which participants were assigned out of state and out of region. Each official was also asked to comment on the current assignment patterns for participants within their regions.

To obtain additional information on the Job Corps participant assignment process, we interviewed a sample of contractors responsible for 15 recruiting contracts. Using the program year 1993 assignment data contained in SPAMIS, we selected the top 16 large-scale recruiting contracts—defined as those that assigned over 300 participants to Job Corps centers—with the highest proportion of participants who were sent out of state. For contrast, we also chose three other recruiting contracts from the same locations that had relatively few out-of-state assignments. Each contractor was interviewed by telephone using a semistructured interview protocol that included questions relating to the Job Corps’ participant assignment process. Specifically, we asked about the status of their recruiting contract(s) and their responsibilities and reporting requirements. We also asked the recruiting contractors to identify those factors that had the most impact on their decision on where to assign a participant. Some of the contractors were no longer under contract, and others could not be reached. As a result, we interviewed contractors responsible for 13 contracts that had a large proportion of participants recruited for out-of-state centers and 2 contracts that had relatively fewer participants going out of state. While our questions were based on the analysis of program year 1993 assignment information, we also asked each recruiting contractor to comment on his or her current student assignment patterns.

Limitations

We selected recruiting contractors to interview on the basis of their assignment of participants to centers outside participants’ states of residence. This selection process was not random and, therefore, the results reported cannot be generalized to recruiting contractors overall.

Our distance analysis was based upon zip code centroid and is intended to provide a gross measure of distance. Actual travel distances may vary. The average length of stay of participants at Job Corps centers can show some variation from year to year, as would the estimated center capacity when calculated from this number. To illustrate these variations, we have presented program year 1993 data alongside data for program year 1994 (see app. II). While we did not verify the accuracy of the SPAMIS data provided by Labor, we did check the consistency of participants’ zip code and state of residence data and eliminated those files with inconsistent information. We also compared the results from our analyses of program year 1994 data with those from program year 1993 for consistency at the national, regional, and state levels.

Comparison of Key Data for Program Years 1994 and 1993

Percentage assigned to centers in home state Percentage sent to centers in other states Percentage of state residents assigned to out-of-state centers Number of states assigning 0-24 percent of state residents out of state Number of states assigning 25-49 percent of state residents out of state Number of states assigning 50-74 percent of state residents out of state Number of states assigning 75%+ state residents out of state Percentage of Job Corps participants assigned to centers in same region as residence Average distance traveled (in miles) by participants assigned to out-of-state centers Average distance (in miles) to nearest in-state center for those participants assigned to out-of-state centers Percentage of center participants from out of state Number of centers having 0-24 percent of participants from out of state Number of centers having 25-49 percent of participants from out of state Number of centers having 50-74 percent of participants from out of state Number of centers having 75+ percent participants from out of state Number of participants obtaining jobs Number of participants obtaining jobs in home state Percentage obtaining jobs in home state Number of participants that were or could have been trained in state (continued)

States Within Job Corps Regions, Program Year 1994

Comparison of State Program Capacity With In-State Demand, Program Year 1994

Percentage of Participants Assigned Out of State, Program Years 1994 and 1993

Percentage of Participants Assigned Out of State, Program Year 1994

Percentage of Participants Assigned Out of State, Program Year 1993

Number of Nonresidents Brought Into States Compared With Number of Residents Sent Out of State, Program Years 1994 and 1993

Number of participants who were Brought in from other states (continued)

Number of participants who were Brought in from other states Number of participants who were Brought in from other states (continued)

Number of participants who were Brought in from other states The centers in Alaska and North Dakota (one in each state) were not fully operational in program year 1993.

Percentage of In-State Participants That Could Be Served by States, Program Years 1994 and 1993

Percentage of In-State Participants That Could Be Served, Program Year 1994

Percentage of In-State Participants That Could Be Served, Program Year 1993

Tables Supporting Bar Graphs in Report Text

Comments From the Department of Labor

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Labor’s letter dated June 3, 1996.

GAO Comments

1. The legislative language relating to the assignment of enrollees to Job Corps centers is included in the Background section of the report. 2. We have modified our report to note that the Job Corps regional operations are carried out under the direction of nine regional managers. 3. We agree that participants transferring into advanced training may be required to travel additional miles to attend this training. To respond to Labor’s comments, we attempted to identify all the participants included in our analysis who transferred into advanced training courses. We were able to identify all participants who transferred from the original center to which they were assigned, regardless of the reason for transfer, but the information was not available to identify those specifically transferring to advanced training programs. Nonetheless, eliminating from our analysis the over 1,800 participants who transferred between centers did not change our findings. The average distance traveled by participants assigned to out-of-state centers was 375 miles, compared with about 390 miles when including the over 1,800; the distance to the nearest in-state center remained the same—93 miles. Thus, our finding—that participants assigned to centers outside their state of residence were sent to centers that were, on average, over 4 times as far as the closest in-state center—is unchanged. 4. We have modified our report, where appropriate, to indicate that our use of the term “demand” is limited to only those enrolling in Job Corps and that it does not include those who are eligible and interested in the program but have not yet enrolled. 5. Our report provides a separate section with a caption that highlights that program participants are employed in their state of residence. 6. We have clarified our report to recognize that the high number of nonresidents in the California center cited may have been due to the nature of the training offered, that is, the center provided advanced training to participants from across the nation. 7. The reasons for assigning participants to out-of-state centers cited in our report are based on comments by those involved in deciding where enrollees are actually assigned—the nine regional directors and several outreach/screening contractors. The principal reasons cited were to fully use available space at the centers and to satisfy participants’ preferences either to attend a specific center or to enroll in a specific occupational training course. 8. As suggested, we have included a statement in the Results in Brief section that recognizes our inability to determine whether specific vocational training slots were available at the closest center when participants were enrolled. 9. We have included a statement on page 4 of our report to recognize Job Corps’ proactive role in ensuring that the program works more closely with state and local agencies.

Related GAO Products

Job Corps: Comparison of Federal Program With State Youth Training Initiatives (GAO/HEHS-96-92, Mar. 28, 1996).

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

Job Corps: High Costs and Mixed Results Raise Questions About Program’s Effectiveness (GAO/HEHS-95-180, June 30, 1995).

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.