Job Corps was established in 1964 as an employment and training program aimed at providing severely disadvantaged youth with a comprehensive array of services, primarily in a residential setting. Administered by the Department of Labor, Job Corps services are provided at 110 centers located throughout the United States. All but four of the states have at least one center operating within their boundaries. The program receives annual funding of approximately $1 billion to serve about 100,000 youths. The program enrolls youths aged 16 to 24 who are severely disadvantaged, in need of additional education or training, and living in a disruptive environment. Our previous report contained an analysis of characteristics of those terminating from Job Corps in program year 1993, which showed that over two-thirds of the program’s participants had multiple barriers to employment. Enrollment is voluntary, and training programs are open entry and self-paced, allowing participants to enroll throughout the year and to progress at their own pace. On average, participants spend about 8 months in the program but can stay up to 2 years. Each of the centers provides participants with a range of services including basic education, vocational skills training, social skills instruction, counseling, health care (including dental), room and board, and recreational activities. Skills training is offered in a variety of vocational areas, such as business occupations, automotive repair, construction trades, and health occupations. These programs are taught by center staff, private contractors, or instructors provided under contracts with national labor and business organizations. One feature that makes Job Corps different from other youth training programs is its residential component. About 90 percent of the approximately 63,000 youths enrolled each year live at the centers, allowing services to be provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The premise for boarding participants is that most come from a disruptive environment and therefore can benefit from receiving education and training in a different setting where a variety of support services is available around the clock. Job Corps typically employs residential staff to oversee dormitory living and security staff for the safety and well-being of its participants. Furthermore, Job Corps participants must have permission to leave the Job Corps center grounds, and participants “earn” home leave, which must be approved before being taken and can be denied for a number of reasons such as failure to follow a center’s rules of conduct. The Job Corps program recently implemented a “Zero Tolerance” policy for violence and drugs in order to ensure a safe and drug-free environment. This policy includes a “one-strike-and-you’re-out” provision for the most serious violent or criminal offenses as well as for drug violations. Job Corps enrollees receive periodic allowance and incentive payments. For example, initially a participant receives a base allowance of about $50 per month, which increases to about $80 per month after 6 months. In addition, participants are eligible to receive incentive bonuses of between $25 and $80 each if they earn an exceptional rating on their performance evaluations, held every 60 days. Participants can also earn bonuses of $250 each for graduating from high school or receiving a general equivalency diploma, completing vocational training, and getting a job. Participants receive an additional $100 if the job is related to the vocational training they received while in Job Corps. Participants obtain jobs through a variety of mechanisms, including finding the job on their own, being referred by their vocational instructor, and being placed by the Job Corps center or a contracted placement agency. Participation in Job Corps can lead to placement in a job or enrollment in further training or education. It can also lead to educational achievements such as attaining a high school diploma and reading or math skill gains. However, the primary outcome for Job Corps participants is employment; about 60 percent of those leaving the program get jobs. Recently, the Department of Labor placed emphasis on participants receiving a job related to the occupational training they received by including training-related employment among its program performance measures. State and local entities have established a wide array of youth training programs using funds from various sources, including federal, state, and local governments and private contributors. While many of these programs share some individual characteristics with Job Corps, we found that the extent to which the four characteristics were present in state or locally established youth training programs was limited. However, we did identify two programs that had all four characteristics. Most state officials we surveyed told us their states had programs that provided disadvantaged youth with basic education. For example, the Learning Center, operated by a Boston community-based antipoverty organization, offers a specialized year-round alternative education program for youth that includes alternative high school, general equivalency diploma, and school-to-work programs. The program is not residential nor does it provide vocational training. Furthermore, some programs identified by state officials as offering basic education also provided vocational training. The vocational training, however, consisted of preemployment preparation or introduction to the working world but not training in a specific occupation. For example, the Youth Opportunities Unlimited program in Arkansas is a high school intervention program, administered by the state’s Department of Higher Education, designed to encourage economically disadvantaged youth to remain in school. In addition to basic education, program participants receive classroom training in preemployment and work maturity skills combined with the practical application of skills provided through on-campus employment. No job-specific skills training, however, is provided. Residential programs operated by the states generally targeted specific populations—such as youths who have been involved with the court system, disabled individuals, or substance abusers. For example, one state-funded program, the Gulf Coast Trades Center in Texas, integrates in a residential setting vocational training, basic education, and support services for delinquent youth. The program is designed to prepare young people for employment in one of nine trades including auto mechanics, construction trades, and culinary arts. In addition, the program provides a range of other services including counseling, health care, transitional living assistance, and job search skills development. We found that state and local youth corps programs most closely resembled Job Corps. Both youth corps programs and Job Corps operate in a large number of states, typically serve disadvantaged youth, and provide instruction to enhance basic education skills. On the other hand, few youth corps programs are residential. We found two that contained all four characteristics that describe Job Corps. Youth corps programs originated in the 1930s when President Roosevelt founded the Civilian Conservation Corps to provide alternative employment for young men during the Great Depression. The program was disbanded in 1942 but was revived with the enactment of legislation in 1970 that created the Youth Conservation Corps—a summer work program. In 1977, the enactment of the Young Adult Conservation Corps provided youths with year-round conservation-related employment and educational opportunities. Both programs were virtually eliminated through dramatic federal budget reductions in 1981. By that time, however, many states had begun to support these programs directly. According to the National Association of Service and Conservation Corps, 81 year-round state and local youth corps programs operated in 32 states and the District of Columbia in 1994, providing services to about 9,300 full-time participants. (See app. I for a listing of the 81 programs.) Funding for these programs was about $166 million in 1994. Approximately one-fourth of this funding was from federal sources, such as the Job Training Partnership Act, the National and Community Service Act, and the Community Development Block Grant. The remaining funds came from state and local governments and private contributions. Over half of the youth corps programs are operated by independent, nonprofit organizations; the remainder are part of state and local governments. We found two youth corps programs that most closely resembled the Job Corps program from among the youth programs we identified; that is, they operated residential sites; served disadvantaged youth; offered basic education; and, to an extent, provided vocational training. We visited both programs—California Conservation Corps, which had multiple locations in California, and Seaborne Conservation Corps in Galveston, Texas—to obtain detailed information on how these programs operated compared with Job Corps. The California Conservation Corps was established in 1976 to assist youth in becoming more employable by providing educational opportunities and meaningful work aimed at protecting and enhancing California’s natural and human resources. The program’s motto “hard work, low pay, miserable conditions” provides prospective enrollees with a preview of corps life and reflects the nature of the program. For example, each year about 85 youths participate in the Backcountry Trails Project and spend an entire 6-month period in remote areas of California’s parks and forests doing trail work. During this time, participants live in spartan tent camps supplied by mule train and helicopter, hike as much as 15 miles each day while clearing trails, and earn minimum wages for their efforts. In 1994, the California Conservation Corps had an annual budget of about $50 million and served about 1,700 youths at its 44 locations statewide, 13 of which were residential. Participants average 7.4 months in the program, and almost two-thirds of participants live in the residential component. As shown in figure 1, the program receives its operating funds from a variety of sources—the largest source being the state’s general fund, which contributes about 56 percent of the program’s operating budget. About a third of the operating budget comes from revenue generated by program activities, such as reimbursements for public service conservation work and installation of energy-efficient lighting in public buildings. In addition, the California Conservation Corps requires youths participating in the residential component to pay the program for a portion of their room and board. This accounts for approximately 10 percent of the program’s operating funds. Several differences exist between the California Conservation Corps and Job Corps. For example, Job Corps seeks to enroll the most severely disadvantaged youths who have multiple barriers to employment, while the California Conservation Corps does not specifically target disadvantaged youth—any California resident not on probation or parole is eligible. However, over half of the participants are high school dropouts. Job Corps participants receive an allowance of $50 to $80 per month and receive free room and board and medical and dental services, whereas California Conservation Corps participants earn a weekly wage but must pay $225 per month for their room and board and another $50 per month if they elect the optional health insurance. Whereas Job Corps provides training in specific vocational areas and emphasizes job placement in related occupations, the California Conservation Corps seeks to improve the employability of its participants primarily by providing work experience through environmental and public conservation projects. Some of the skills involved in these projects may be transferable to related fields in the labor market when the participants leave the program, but employment in occupations related to the training received is not a primary focus of the California Conservation Corps. California Conservation Corps participants have been involved in such projects as rebuilding trails at Yosemite National Park, fighting wildfires in Southern California, installing solar panels at a state training facility in Galt, landscaping San Diego’s Wild Animal Park, and cleaning up an oil spill near Oxnard. According to program officials, many former participants become employed as rangers with the National Park Service and National Forest Service. Others who were enrolled in the energy conservation program have found jobs in the private sector performing similar work. We visited two of the residential sites in California—Placer Service District in Auburn and Delta Service District in Stockton. The Placer site is located about 1 hour northeast of Sacramento, in a rural setting. The site is self-contained, having been built in 1952 as a conservation camp for convicts. The facilities consist of two dormitories (housing about 100 youths), an administration building, auto shop, wood shop, energy lab, cafeteria, and recreation hall. Participants are not restricted to facility grounds and can maintain their own vehicles. About half of all Placer participants are in the energy conservation program, while most of the other members participate in resource conservation activities. A few opportunities also exist for specialist training as cook, auto mechanic, and office clerk. The Delta site is on the grounds of the Stockton Development Center, a former state mental hospital. The site is located in an urban area and has open access. The main building consists of an administrative area, a large classroom, and several smaller classrooms. The building contains adjacent wings for dormitories housing about 75 participants. Except for administrative and operations staff, no other professional or medical staff are on site. Most of the training opportunities at Delta are in the environmental conservation area, such as fire fighting, flood control, and erosion control. The Seaborne Conservation Corps is a relatively new program, having been established by Texas A&M University at Galveston in September 1994 through a partnership among the university, the Department of the Navy, and the Texas National Guard, with support from the Corporation for National and Community Service’s AmeriCorps. About two-thirds of its $2 million budget is funded by the Department of Defense (Civil-Military Cooperation) and the remainder is funded by AmeriCorps. Because of funding uncertainties from both the Department of Defense and AmeriCorps, program officials hope to turn to the state of Texas for funding beyond its current class, which is scheduled to graduate in May 1996. Seaborne is a residential training program targeted to high school dropouts. Its 7-month training program provides basic education, life skills instruction, and vocational skills training. However, differences exist between Seaborne and Job Corps. For example, Seaborne’s training program has fixed start and end dates, whereas Job Corps uses an open-entry/open-exit format. In addition, Seaborne participants train in a military-style environment, including undergoing a 4-week boot camp, observing military standards and discipline, and typically training and working 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. Participants are required to perform 900 hours of community service, which program officials believe promotes a strong work ethic while instilling a sense of community pride. All participants live aboard the T/S Texas Clipper, the Texas A&M University training ship supplied by the Maritime Administration for training students in the Texas State Maritime Training Program. While no income requirement exists, participants must be high school dropouts. Furthermore, the program will not accept delinquent youths or youths who test positive for drugs. The program requires participants to pass a military-type physical examination and prefers to enroll those who can read at or above the grade 7 level, although exceptions may be made. All interested youths are also interviewed by program staff in an attempt to assess their motivation. Seaborne maintains a drug-free policy similar to Job Corps’ Zero Tolerance policy. Seaborne tests each participant for drugs at enrollment and then randomly tests a sample of participants (10 to 12 percent) each month. In addition, Seaborne tests any participant for cause or suspicion and may command a 100-percent drug test at any time. For example, all participants in the current class have been tested for drugs following each home leave. If a participant tests positive at any time, he or she is dismissed immediately from the program. Seaborne’s vocational training component is tied directly to the local economy by focusing on the maritime industry. Participants receive maritime training on board the Clipper and perform an internship at the University’s Center for Marine Training and Safety. According to the program’s Director, the maritime industry has a critical need for entry-level workers. He stated that he could easily find jobs for 300 youths every year. However, not all participants want to work in the maritime industry. In fact, of the 76 graduates from Seaborne’s first two classes, only 21 (28 percent) became employed in the maritime industry. As shown in figure 2, about 42 percent of Seaborne’s first two classes either dropped out or were dismissed before completing the program. The attrition rate has been reduced with each class—from 48 percent in the first class to about 15 percent in the third (current) class. The program Director attributed the 48-percent dropout rate in the first class to the staff’s not fully explaining to prospective participants the program’s difficult lifestyle, especially the military structure and discipline, the 16-hour days, and the rigorous physical requirements. A distinguishing feature of the Seaborne program is the interrelationship of a number of organizations. Seaborne is operated by a local university specializing in ocean sciences. The university provides the ship that participants live and train on, and all program staff are university employees. Program staff have developed links with local maritime companies, who have indicated they are willing to hire all Seaborne graduates interested in maritime careers. The program has also cultivated close relationships with area school districts, which are a major source of prospective recruits. In addition, a private foundation and local bank have cooperated in developing a guaranteed loan program for Seaborne graduates. This low-interest loan program not only provides participants with money to help them transition to the workplace but also gives them a credit history. Seaborne also works closely with the Texas National Guard, using its facilities and medical staff. Program staff use local Navy, Marine, and National Guard recruiters for outreach and placement. Youths who interview with military recruiters but are not eligible for the military are often referred to Seaborne. In comments on a draft of this report, the Department of Labor generally agreed with the information contained in the report. We have incorporated Labor’s comments where appropriate. Labor pointed out that a fifth feature of Job Corps that should not be overlooked is its emphasis on job placement following program separation. We recognize Job Corps’ overall goal of placement in a job or additional education and training and have so noted this in our report. Labor also stated that, unlike most other programs, Job Corps focuses on severely disadvantaged youth. Labor believed that this distinction could be made clearer. We made minor adjustments to our draft to clarify this distinction. Labor’s comments are printed in appendix II. We also provided pertinent sections from our draft report to officials from the California Conservation Corps and Seaborne Conservation Corps for their review. They agreed with our characterization of their programs and provided minor technical clarifications. We incorporated their comments where appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; relevant congressional committees; and other interested parties. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 512-7014 or Sigurd Nilsen at (202) 512-7003. Major contributors to this report include Thomas Medvetz, Wayne Sylvia, and Marquita Sylvia.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO identified state and local youth training programs that incorporate four basic characteristics of the Job Corps Program: (1) serving a severely disadvantaged population; (2) providing basic education instruction; (3) focusing on vocational training services; and (4) providing those services in a residential setting. GAO found that: (1) while many state and local youth training programs feature, to some extent, some of the Job Corps' basic characteristics, most do not feature all four characteristics; (2) most youth training programs provide disadvantaged youth with basic education; (3) states' residential youth programs generally target specific populations such as youths involved in the court system, disabled youth, or substance abusers; (4) although state and local youth corps programs most closely resemble the Job Corps, few are residential; and (5) the California Conservation Corps and Seaborne Conservation Corps in Galveston, Texas, feature all four Job Corps characteristics, but differ from Job Corps in program operations.