Job Corps was established in 1964 to address employment barriers faced by severely disadvantaged youth throughout the United States. Thirty years later, it remains as a nationally operated program at a time when responsibility for other federal training programs, most notably the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), has been delegated to state and local agencies. In program year 1993, the most recent 1-year period for which complete spending and outcomes data were available, about three-fourths of the program’s total expenditures of about $933 million was for center operating costs, such as staff salaries, equipment, maintenance, and utilities (see fig. 1). The remaining funds were used for student allowances and payments; contracts for outreach, screening, and placement services; contracts with national training providers; and facilities construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition. Currently, 111 Job Corps centers are located throughout the United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico (see fig. 2). Although most states have at least one center, four states have no centers—Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Wyoming—while several states have four or more centers (California, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Oregon, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington). Private corporations and nonprofit organizations, selected through a competitive procurement process, operate 81 centers; the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, as required by law, directly operate 30 centers, called civilian conservation centers, under interagency agreements. While the program’s capacity has fluctuated over the years since its establishment, the current capacity closely approximates its original size. In 1966, about 41,900 slots were available at 106 centers. Today, approximately 41,000 slots are available at 111 centers, ranging in size from 120 slots at a center in California to 2,234 at another center in Kentucky. Appendix III lists the centers, their student capacity, and their operating costs for program year 1993. Job Corps enrolls youth aged 16 to 24 who are economically disadvantaged, in need of additional education or training, and living in a disruptive environment. Enrollments are voluntary, and training programs are open-entry and self-paced, allowing students to enroll throughout the year and to progress at their own pace. Individuals enroll in Job Corps by submitting applications through outreach and screening contractors, which include state employment service agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private for-profit firms. On average, students spend about 8 months in the program but can stay up to 2 years. Each Job Corps center provides services including basic education, vocational skills training, social skills instruction, counseling (for personal problems as well as for alcohol and drug abuse), health care, room and board, and recreational activities. Each center offers training in several 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. 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. One feature that makes Job Corps different from other federal training programs is its residential component. For example, employment training services under JTPA, the federal government’s principal job training program for the economically disadvantaged, are provided in a nonresidential setting. Under Job Corps, 90 percent of the students live at the centers, allowing services to be provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The premise for boarding students 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. The residential component is a major reason the program is so expensive. While in the program, students receive allowance and incentive payments. For example, initially a student receives a base allowance of about $50 per month, increasing to about $80 per month after 6 months. In addition, students 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. Students 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. Students receive an additional $100 if the job is related to the vocational training they received while in Job Corps. Students 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. The last comprehensive study of the effectiveness of the Job Corps program was done nearly 15 years ago. While that study concluded that the program was cost effective—returning $1.46 to society for every dollar being spent on the program—more recently, audits by Labor’s Inspector General, media reports, and congressional oversight hearings have surfaced issues and concerns with the program’s operations. Among these are concerns about the quality of training and outcomes in relation to program costs, incidents of violence occurring at some centers, and the overall management of the program. The Job Corps program is the most expensive employment and training program that Labor administers, spending, on average, four times as much per student as JTPA. According to Labor’s program year 1993 figures, the cost per Job Corps terminee averaged about $15,300. In contrast, the cost per youth terminee (aged 16-22) in JTPA averaged about $3,700.The clientele targeted by Job Corps, as well as the comprehensive services provided to the students, contributes to the high cost of the program. Job Corps seeks to enroll the most severely disadvantaged youth who have multiple barriers to employment. We compared characteristics—at the time of program enrollment—of the 63,000 program year 1993 Job Corps terminees with the 172,000 comparable youth terminees from JTPA.Using JTPA’s definition of hard-to-serve clients, we compared those characteristics that could be commonly applied to both programs—being a school dropout, being deficient in basic skills (reading and/or math skills below the eighth grade), receiving public assistance, and having limited English proficiency. We found that the percentage of Job Corps students with a combination of two or more of these employment barriers was much greater than it was for JTPA participants—about 68 percent of all Job Corps terminees nationwide compared with 39 percent of JTPA terminees(see fig. 3). To address the needs of students with multiple employment barriers, Job Corps provides a comprehensive range of services. Among these services are those associated with the residential component and instruction in social skills. Residential living services include meals, lodging, health and dental care, and transportation. Social skills instruction is a structured program that teaches 50 skills, including working in a team, asking questions, dealing with anger, learning self-control, handling embarrassment, and arriving on time for appointments. Taken together, expenditures for residential living and social skills instruction accounted for about 44 percent of the program year 1993 Job Corps operating costs nationally. At the six centers we visited, we obtained detailed information on program year 1993 expenditures for various Job Corps activities and found that about 45 percent of the funds was spent on residential living and social skills instruction, whereas about 22 percent went for basic education and vocational training and 21 percent for administration (see fig. 4). While Job Corps reported nationally that in program year 1993 about 59 percent of the 63,000 students who left the program obtained jobs,only 36 percent of Job Corps students complete their vocational training (see fig. 5). At the six centers we visited, we found that almost half the jobs obtained by students were low-skill jobs not related to the training provided. However, the students who completed vocational training at these centers were 5 times more likely to obtain a training-related job at wages 25 percent higher than students who did not complete their training. Yet, about 40 percent of program funds at the six centers was spent on students who did not complete vocational training. Using program year 1993 results, five of the six centers we visited would not have met Labor’s current standard for measuring vocational completion—56 percent of vocational enrollees in the program for at least 60 days should complete their vocational training. At the 6 centers we visited, we analyzed the outcomes for the 2,449 students who had been enrolled in Job Corps for at least 60 days and who also had entered a vocational training program and found that about 44 percent of the students completed their vocational training. As shown in figure 6, the proportion of these students who completed vocational training programs ranged from about 18 percent at one center to about 61 percent at another—overall, about 30 percent completed vocational training. Overall, students who completed vocational training were 50 percent more likely to obtain a job than those students who did not complete it (76 percent versus 49 percent, respectively). Furthermore, we found that those students who completed their vocational training were more likely to get a training related job than those who did not complete it.Comparing the types of jobs obtained by students who did and did not complete their vocational training, we found that students who had completed their training were five times more likely to obtain a job that was training related. At the six centers we visited, about 37 percent of the students who had completed vocational training obtained training-related jobs (see fig. 7). In contrast, only 7 percent of those students who did not complete their training obtained training-related jobs. For example, training-related jobs for students who received health care training included nurses’ assistant, physical therapy aide, and home health aide; for those who received training in the skilled construction trades, training-related jobs included painter, carpenter, and electrician. Overall, about 14 percent of all program year 1993 terminees at the six centers received training-related jobs (this consisted of 11.4 percent vocational completers and 2.8 percent noncompleters). Furthermore, we found that the average wage paid to the students who obtained these training-related jobs was 25 percent higher than the average wage paid to students who did not obtain training-related jobs—$6.60 versus $5.28 per hour. About two-thirds of the jobs obtained by students who did not complete their training were in low-skill positions such as fast food worker, cashier, laborer, assembler, and janitor. In order to get a better picture of how much the program spends in relation to the outcomes attained, we analyzed program costs with respect to the amount of time that students spent in the program at the six centers. We determined that the average cost per student day was $65—ranging from $51 per day at one center to $119 at another center. We used this computation to calculate the cost of various program outcomes at the six centers. At these centers, vocational completers, on average, remained in the program longer than those who did not complete training (400 days versus 119 days, respectively). As a result, these centers spent considerably more on vocational completers. For example, the cost per student who completed vocational training, on average, was $26,219 compared with $7,803 for students who did not complete vocational training. Yet, because less than a third of the students completed vocational training, a large proportion of the centers’ program funds—approximately 40 percent, or about $19 million—was spent on students who did not complete the training. As shown in figure 8, most centers spent at least 50 percent on students who completed their vocational training. However, one center spent only about 25 percent of its funds on students who completed their vocational training. Nationally, about 66 percent was spent on students who completed vocational training. On the basis of our survey of employers of a random sample of Job Corps students from the six centers, we found that employers were generally satisfied with the basic work habits and technical preparation of the Job Corps students they employed. Although students did not remain with these employers for very long (about one-half worked 2 months or less), the majority of employers said they would hire them again. Because neither Labor nor the Job Corps centers had information on student job retention, we contacted the employers of a random sample of 413 students who obtained jobs. Our survey of employers was intended to validate reported placement data, determine job retention periods, and gauge employer satisfaction with students’ basic work habits and specific technical skills provided by the Job Corps program (see app. II for a detailed description of our methodology). Of the employers who responded, 79 percent rated the Job Corps students’ basic work habits average to excellent. In addition, for those employers reporting that the job matched the training, 85 percent believed the students were at least moderately prepared to handle the technical requirements of the job. Students who obtained jobs upon leaving Job Corps tended not to remain with those employers for very long. Of those students for which we obtained employment information, about 88 percent were no longer working with their initial employer. As shown in figure 9, approximately 30 percent of the students who were no longer employed in their initial job worked less than a month, while about 20 percent worked 6 months or longer. According to the employers, the predominant reasons students were no longer employed were that they quit (45 percent), were fired (22 percent), or were laid off (13 percent). Our employer survey gave us information that raises concerns about the validity of Job Corps-reported job placement statistics. We tried to contact employers for 413 students who Labor reported as having been hired. In 34 instances, employers reported they had no record of having hired the student. Another 2 employers stated they had hired a student, but the student never reported for work. Furthermore, another seven students were not employed, but were placed with an employment agency or enrolled in JTPA training. Thus, about 10 percent of the reported job placements appeared to be invalid. We were also unable to find the employer of record for almost 10 percent of our sample of students (an additional 39 students) using both the telephone number listed in Labor’s records and directory assistance. According to Labor, placement contractors verify 100 percent of the job placements, and Labor regional offices re-verify a sample of at least 50 percent of reported job placements. We provided Labor, at its request, detailed information on the 34 students that employers reported they had no record of hiring and the 39 whose employers we were unable to locate. Labor responded that, in the short time it had available, it was able to verify employment for 44 of these 73 students. However, our review of Labor’s documentation showed that it provided additional evidence to support only 18 placements (12 of the 34 and 6 of the 39). For many of the remaining placements, Labor merely provided the original documents that were on file when we initially attempted to verify employment. In other instances, the data differed from the original documents with respect to the employer and employment dates of record, or verification was made by the student or a relative and not an employer. Thus, we continue to question 15 percent of the placements included in our sample. A substantial part of Job Corps’ vocational training is provided by national contractors on a sole source basis. Our work directed at this long-standing practice raises questions about whether the program and its students are benefiting from this arrangement. On the basis of our review of Labor data, it is uncertain whether the results achieved by the national contractors are much better than those achieved by other Job Corps training providers. Labor has been awarding sole source contracts to nine national unions and one building industry association for over a decade—15 years for one contractor and over 25 years for several others. Its justification for making sole source awards, rather than using full and open competition, is based on three broad factors: (1) the contractor’s past relationship with Job Corps, that is, experience with Labor’s Employment and Training Administration in general and Job Corps specifically, and its thorough knowledge of Job Corps procedures and operation; (2) the contractor’s organizational structure, that is, a large nationwide membership related to a trade, and its strong relationship with national and local apprenticeship programs; and (3) the contractor’s instructional capability, that is, qualified and experienced instructors; ability to provide training specifically developed for the learning level of Job Corps students; and the ability to provide recognition of training as credit toward meeting the requirements of a journeyman. National contractor expenditures during program year 1993 totaled $41 million, about one-third of Job Corps’ overall expenditures for vocational training. (See app. IV for a listing of the national contractors, contract awards, and the year of their initial award from Labor.) While Labor officials stated that a primary justification for awarding sole source national contracts is that the contractors’ maintain an extensive nationwide placement network, it is unclear whether the national contractors are any more successful in placing Job Corps students in jobs than are other training providers. According to Labor officials, because these organizations are national in scope, they can identify job openings, regardless of geographic location, and place Job Corps students in the positions. Thus, they are not constrained by the local job market in seeking jobs for their students. However, Labor’s data show that, programwide, very few of the job placements for those trained by national training contractors in program year 1993 were attributed to the national contractors. According to Labor data, the largest number of job placements (48 percent) were made by “self, family, or friend,” whereas only 3 percent were made by national contractors. The percentage of job placements by national contractors at the six centers we visited was even smaller. Labor data show that less than 1 percent of the placements were made by these contractors. Labor officials acknowledged that the data in their system do not accurately reflect the extent to which national contractors place students because their system was not designed to capture this information. On the other hand, they could not tell us how many placements, in fact, were made by the contractors. Thus, it is unclear whether Job Corps benefits, as contended by Labor officials, from the national contractors’ nationwide placement network. Another reason Labor used in justifying national sole source contracts is that the union contractors are considered to be an effective means for getting Job Corps students into apprenticeship programs. Labor data show that 12 percent of the students in program year 1993, who went through national contractor-provided vocational training courses for at least 90 days were placed in apprenticeship programs. However, we have no basis to determine whether this is acceptable, because Labor does not specify a target level for entry into apprenticeships. Using Labor’s national data, we found only moderate differences in the performance of the national contractors as compared with other Job Corps training providers. In program year 1993, the national contractors had a programwide job placement rate of 59 percent compared with 54 percent for other Job Corps training providers, and a training-related job match of 44 percent compared with 36 percent for others. Comparisons at the six centers we visited were similar, with a job placement rate of 64 percent for national contractors compared with 59 percent for other Job Corps training providers, although the training-related job match was higher—42 percent compared with 30 percent. The national contractors account for about one-third of Job Corps’ vocational training expenditures and the training they provide is primarily in a declining occupational category—the construction trades—which represents about 4 percent of the job market. About 84 percent of national contractor training is in construction-related occupations. Similarly, Job Corps in general emphasizes training in the construction trades. Nationally, about one-third of the program year 1993 terminees were enrolled in construction-related training. Similarly, at five of the six centers we visited, about one-third of the terminees, collectively, were trained in one of the construction trades. These trades encompass a number of occupations, including carpenter, cement mason, and bricklayer. Our analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that over the past 8 years (1986-1993) the proportion of construction-related jobs in the labor market has declined by almost 10 percent. While Job Corps provides extensive services to a severely disadvantaged population—a program design that inherently leads to high costs—our evaluation has surfaced several issues that we believe merit further investigation. We noted that completing vocational training appears to be very important to achieving a successful program outcome, yet only a little over one-third of the students complete their vocational courses. As a result, a substantial portion of Job Corps’ funds (40 percent at the six sites we visited) is being spent on noncompleters. Turnover is high among students in their initial job following Job Corps training. The overall implication of this is unknown; are students moving to other, and perhaps better, jobs, or are they becoming unemployed? We also have serious concerns about the validity of reported job placements. These statistics may be overstated by 9 percentage points at the six centers where we conducted our site work. We will continue to pursue these issues. Our work raises questions about Labor’s use of national training contractors to provide a substantial portion of its vocational training. A primary justification for using national contractors is that they are better able to place students in jobs through their nationwide placement network. However, according to Labor data, nearly half of all job placements were found by the student, family, or friends. The use of national contractors may have been prudent in the past, but times have changed. The shifting composition of the labor market, particularly the decline in the construction trades; the high proportion of vocational training funds allocated to national contractor training; and Labor’s lack of information to support its justification for these national contracts, raises questions about whether this is the most cost-effective approach to vocational training. To ensure that Job Corps vocational training programs are provided in the most efficient and effective manner, we recommend that Labor revisit whether the continued use of national training contractors is cost effective. In comments on a draft of this report, Labor expressed concerns about certain aspects of our report. In response to our recommendation on the use of national contractors, Labor agreed to review the practice of contracting with national training providers on a sole source basis. The following summarizes its concerns and provides our response. (Labor’s comments are printed in app. V.) Labor pointed out a number of items in our report that it believes should be modified or clarified, and we have done so where appropriate. Specifically, we have modified our characterization of program growth over the years, included information on a new study of Job Corps’ net impact, revised the percentage of vocational completers nationwide, and revised our presentation of Job Corps student job retention. In addition, we have made a number of other technical changes to our report to respond to Labor’s comments. Labor expressed concern that we did not recognize other program outcomes, such as general equivalency diploma (GED) attainment, and based our conclusions only on vocational completion and job placement. GED attainment and gains in reading and math skills are quantifiable program outcomes experienced by many Job Corps students. In our view, these outcomes are a means to an end—that is, providing students with the basic educational skills needed in the world of work—and not an end in and of themselves. These other measures are an adjunct to the principal measures of vocational completion and job placement. In fact, Labor’s own literature—Job Corps in Brief, Program Year 1993—states that “Employment and enrollment in full-time education or training are the only positive outcomes recognized by Job Corps in its performance measurement systems.” Labor agreed that, as our report states, Job Corps is more costly than other JTPA programs because of its residential nature and the severely disadvantaged population targeted by the program. However, Job Corps suggested a number of alternative cost-effectiveness comparisons, such as comparing Job Corps with community colleges. Our purpose in making the cost comparison with the JTPA title II-C program was to provide context for Job Corps’ high cost, not to show cost effectiveness. Therefore, we believe, and Labor agrees, that using JTPA title II-C for cost comparison purposes is relevant. As for comparing Job Corps’ completion rates and cost effectiveness with other institutions like community colleges, this was not the purpose of our report, and we would need to do additional work to try to make a relevant comparison. We do not believe that Labor has justified the relevance of the comparisons made in its comments because the populations served and institutions’ purposes are vastly different from the Job Corps.’ Labor also stated that our cost data, which showed that 40 percent of expenditures at the six centers we visited was spent on noncompleters, was not representative of Job Corps as a whole. In developing our data, we computed an average cost per student day using the centers’ program year 1993 total costs and total number of paid days for all students. We applied this in turn to the total student days spent in the program by completers and noncompleters. We believe that our methodology results in a fair allocation of costs to these student categories. While acknowledging that our computations may be true for the six centers, Labor claims that the national average expenditures for noncompleters was 34 percent in program year 1993. Nonetheless, we believe that a substantial amount of program resources is being spent on students who fail to complete their vocational training programs. Using Labor’s estimate, Job Corps spent about $328 million on noncompleters in program year 1993. Labor also took issue with our finding that Job Corps’ reported job placement information is often inaccurate. Using information on questionable job placements from our telephone survey, Labor undertook an effort to verify these placements. Our examination of the documentation Labor used to support its verifications shows that many of these placements remain questionable. Of the 73 questionable placements on which we provided information to Labor, it was able to provide additional evidence supporting 18 placements. We continue to question the remaining placements because Labor provided no additional information beyond that which was on file at the time of our initial verification attempts. In all, we continue to question 15 percent of the placements included in our sample. Labor also raised concerns that we used inappropriate data in concluding that the use of national training contractors to provide vocational training raises questions about whether this is a cost-effective approach. Labor states that the 3-percent placement rate we cite is based on data not designed for this purpose. Our report acknowledges Labor’s assertion that the data do not accurately reflect the extent to which national contractors place students. However, of greater importance is Labor’s acknowledgement that it does not know how many placements were made by the contractors, a primary justification for the continuation of 25 years of sole source contracts. As a result, Labor is paying a substantial portion of its vocational training funds to national contractors but is unable to assess how effective they are in placing students in jobs. Therefore, we believe that our conclusion and related recommendation remain valid. In addition, Labor has agreed to review its practice of contracting with the national training providers on a sole source basis. Labor also took exception with our discussion of the Job Corps program’s emphasis on training in the construction trades. While acknowledging that the construction trades have declined as a proportion of the total job market, Labor stated that they have increased in the total number of jobs, about 80,000 jobs over the 8-year period 1986-93. Labor also pointed out advantages associated with employment in the construction trades and that it may be the most appropriate training for many students. We do not disagree with Labor’s assertion that training in the construction trades may be beneficial for some students. Nonetheless, we believe that a valid question remains about whether it is appropriate for Job Corps to spend over one-third of its vocational training funds on an occupational category that makes up about 4 percent of the labor market. 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 Sigurd R. Nilsen at (202) 512-7003 or Wayne J. Sylvia at (617) 565-7492. Other major contributors include Thomas N. Medvetz, Dianne Murphy, Jeremiah F. Donoghue, Betty S. Clark, and Marquita Harris. We designed our study to collect information on the characteristics of Job Corps students, the services they were provided, and the outcomes they achieved, including employers’ satisfaction with the students hired. We also obtained information on program year 1993 expenditures and the use of national contractors to provide vocational training. In doing our work, we interviewed Job Corps officials at the national and regional levels and conducted site visits at six judgmentally selected Job Corps facilities. We augmented the information collected during the site visits with data from Labor’s Student Pay, Allotment and Management Information System (SPAMIS), a database containing nationwide Job Corps data on all program year 1993 terminees. We also obtained selected data on participants aged 16 to 24 included in Labor’s Standardized Program Information Report (SPIR), a database containing information on program year 1993 JTPA terminees from titles II-A and II-C (programs for economically disadvantaged adults and youth, respectively). This additional data allowed us to compare, nationwide, the characteristics of terminees from Job Corps and JTPA. We also administered a telephone survey to employers of a random sample of Job Corps students who obtained jobs within 6 months after leaving the program. The methodology employed in this survey is discussed in greater detail in appendix II. We conducted site visits at six Job Corps centers during the period December 1994 through April 1995. We selected the sites judgmentally to provide a mixture of Job Corps centers that were (1) located in different Job Corps regions (to provide geographic dispersion); (2) rated among high and low performers according to the Job Corps ranking of performance indicators; (3) operated as civilian conservation centers (CCC) and contractor-operated centers; and (4) operated by different center contractors. Table I.1 lists the centers visited and the characteristics of each. Rank(out of 109) Contractor— Wackenhut Educational Services, Inc. Contractor— Career Systems Development Corp. Contractor—EC Corp. During these site visits, we interviewed center directors on various aspects of center operations, toured the facilities, and reviewed center records. Using the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and other guidance, we analyzed the jobs students obtained relative to the training received to determine whether these jobs were training related. We also compiled detailed cost information using individual center financial records to determine the true nature of expenditures—how much was being spent for administration, basic education and vocational training, social skills instruction, residential living, and other support services. We interviewed Labor officials at both the national and regional offices to obtain an overview of Job Corps operations and budgeting procedures, including how funds are tracked at the national level; reporting requirements for each level of oversight; and methods used for cost allocations. We also collected information on the contracting process, including information on the national training contracts; contracts for center operators; and, to some extent, those awarded for outreach, screening, and placement services. We analyzed Labor data to determine whether Job Corps was serving severely disadvantaged youth—its intended population. We used individual-level data and performed univariate and cross-tabulation descriptive procedures to compare selected characteristics of about 63,000 Job Corps terminees with those of about 172,000 JTPA out-of-school terminees aged 16 to 24 from titles II-A and II-C for program year 1993. Using SPAMIS and SPIR databases, we compared those characteristics considered to be barriers to employment that were commonly defined and uniformly collected by both Job Corps and JTPA. These characteristics included (1) being a school dropout, (2) having basic skills deficiencies (that is, reading or math skills below eighth grade), (3) receiving public assistance, and (4) having limited English proficiency. To provide information on employers’ perceptions about the training provided by the six Job Corps Centers we visited, we surveyed by telephone the employers of a random sample of students from each of these six centers. Sampled students are representative of the population of students at these six centers who had terminated from the program during program year 1993 with at least 60 paid days at the center, and who obtained employment within 6 months after leaving the program. The final sample contained 413 cases representing a population of 1,524 students. To identify this population, we used data files provided to us by the six centers. We verified and, where appropriate, augmented the data with SPAMIS data files from the Department of Labor. Using the telephone numbers provided in the data files, we telephoned the employers of the sampled students during the month of May 1995. We asked employers about students’ job tenure and about their satisfaction with students’ work habits and specific technical skills. We directed the survey to those officials most knowledgeable about employment histories and placement information. Our analyses are based on responses from employers of 92 percent of the sampled students. Findings from the survey were statistically adjusted (weighted) to produce estimates that are representative for each of the six sites and for the six sites combined. All data are self-reported, and we did not independently verify their accuracy. We used the data provided by the six centers and augmented it, as necessary, with the SPAMIS database to develop a data file. The file contained all required information for each member of our target population—Job Corps program terminees from program year 1993 who had been in Job Corps for at least 60 paid days and who had received jobs within 6 months of leaving the program. Using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences sampling routine, we selected a simple random sample for each site. The population for the 6 sites ranged from 96 to 425 students, for a total of 1,524. The sample for the 6 sites ranged from 49 to 81 students, for a total of 413. Table II.1 contains population and sample sizes by site. During our survey, we asked employers to verify placement information, including job titles and hiring dates; provide corrected information, when appropriate; and provide job tenure information. We also asked employers to assess students’ work habits, technical skills, and whether the observed length of stay was average for that job. Interviewers used an electronic form of the survey, prepared using Questionnaire Programming Language, and entered the data directly into a computer file. Interviewer files were collated and processed on a site-by-site basis, base weights and nonresponse weights were calculated and attached to the file, the data from the six sites were merged, and all identifying data were removed. The responses contained in this report represent combined weighted responses for all six sites. We telephoned the employers of the 413 originally sampled students during the month of May 1995. Of the 413 students in the original sample, 55 were found to be ineligible for our survey. We considered a student ineligible if his or her employer’s phone number was incorrect or disconnected and we could not obtain a new one, or if the employer did not have records available to verify the student’s employment. Subtracting these ineligible students from our original sample yielded an adjusted sample of 358 students. At least three attempts were made to contact the employer of each of the 358 students. After repeated calls, we were unable to reach and/or interview the employers of 28 of these students. These 28 cases were classified as nonrespondents. We were able to reach and complete interviews with the employers of the other 330 sampled, eligible students. Dividing the number of students with whom we completed interviews by the adjusted sample yields a response rate of 92 percent. The survey questions about employer satisfaction with students proved to be very sensitive. In about 46 percent of the 330 interviews, employers declined to answer these particular questions about the students because of company policies or concerns about protecting the privacy of the student or the employer. All sample surveys are subject to sampling error, that is, the extent to which the results differ from what would be obtained if the whole population had been administered the questionnaire. Since the whole population does not receive the questionnaire in a sample survey, the true size of the sampling error cannot be known. However, it can be estimated from the responses to the survey. The estimate of sampling error depends largely on the number of respondents and the amount of variability in the data. For this report, site-level estimates are not provided, and therefore sampling errors at the site level were not calculated. For the estimates for the six centers combined, the sampling error ranges between +/- 3 and +/- 9 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level. In addition to sampling errors, surveys are also subject to other types of systematic error or bias that can affect results. This is especially true when respondents are asked to answer questions of a sensitive nature or to provide factual information that is inherently subject to error. Lack of understanding of the questions can also result in systematic error. Bias can affect both response rates and the way that respondents answer particular questions. It is not possible to assess the magnitude of the effect of biases, if any, on the results of a survey. Rather, possibilities of bias can only be identified and accounted for when interpreting results. This survey had two major possible sources of bias: (1) sensitivity of certain issues and questions and (2) bias associated with all telephone surveys due to inability to reach the sampling target. The employer ratings of employees’ workplace behaviors requested by our survey are sensitive to several factors. For example, the particular rating provided by an employer may have been influenced by his/her ability to recall the specific habits and abilities of a particular individual in response to our questions. It also may have been affected by his/her overall like or dislike of the individual irrespective of the particular behaviors in question. Furthermore, some employers declined to provide any information about satisfaction with employees’ performance and technical skills. This reluctance may have had any number of unknown causes, including an unwillingness to report poor performance or an internal policy prohibiting the disclosure of any performance information. A second kind of bias may result from our inability to reach every sampled employer because of their inaccessibility by telephone. Certain types of businesses could not be reached because of various problems including the presence of answering machines or the inaccuracy of information contained in the data files. To the extent that businesses using answering machines are different than those that do not, there could be bias in the type of employer we were able to reach. Additionally, while we made every attempt to ascertain correct information, in some cases we were unable to do so. To the extent that errors in the data file provided by Job Corps are not random, bias of an unknown direction or magnitude could be present in the nature of the responses we received. Capacity (no. of students) (continued) Capacity (no. of students) (continued) Capacity (no. of students) (continued) Capacity (no. of students) Award(millions) 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. 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 (301) 258-4097 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on Job Corps program operations, focusing on: (1) who is being served and the services provided; (2) the outcomes that the program is achieving in relation to program cost and employers' satisfaction with Job Corps students they hire; and (3) whether the long-standing practice of awarding sole-source contracts for vocational training services is cost-effective. GAO found that: (1) Job Corps services severely disadvantaged youth and provides them with comprehensive services in a residential setting; (2) 68 percent of the students that left Job Corps in 1994 encountered several barriers to employment, such as not having a high school diploma, lacking basic skills, receiving public assistance, and having limited English proficiency; (3) 20 percent of Job Corps' funds were spent on basic education and vocational skills training in 1994; (4) Job Corps students that complete vocational training are five times more likely to get higher paying, training-related jobs; (5) most employers are generally satisfied with Job Corps students' basic work habits and the technical training provided by the Job Corps program; (6) only moderate differences exist between the job placement rates of national contractors and Job Corps training providers; and (7) the continued use of national contractors as training providers is not cost-effective because they account for nearly one-third of Job Corps' vocational training expenditures and the training they provide is primarily in a declining occupational category.