Enacted in 1998, WIA replaced the fragmented and overlapping programs under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) with a system that sought to connect employment, education, and training services to better match job seekers to labor market needs. The youth program falls under Title I of WIA along with programs for adults and dislocated workers; Title II deals with adult and family literacy; Title III pertains to employment services under the Wagner-Peyser Act; and Title IV addresses vocational rehabilitation. To better prepare low-income youth who face barriers to employment and education, WIA requires youth programs to focus on long-term, comprehensive services delivered year-round through a coordinated network of service providers. In addition to meeting the low- income requirement, to be eligible for WIA services youth must be between the ages of 14 and 21 and faced with one or more of six barriers to employment. WIA serves both in-school and out-of-school youth. A significant portion of out-of-school youth are high school dropouts and unemployed youth who are struggling to succeed in the public education system and lack financial, family, or social support. Thus, at least 30 percent of local WIA youth funds must be spent on out-of-school youth. Since WIA’s full implementation in 2000, funding for the youth program has ranged between approximately $1 billion and $1.4 billion a year. Labor follows a formula to allocate WIA funds to states, which in turn distribute money to their local workforce investment areas. At the state level, the governor can reserve up to 15 percent of the annual WIA allotment for such statewide activities as developing the WIA strategic plan for the state. States allocate the remaining 85 percent of funds to local boards that use the funds to develop the local strategic plan, establish a youth council, and award competitive contracts to youth service providers that have been recommended by the youth council. In addition to recommending eligible providers, the youth council coordinates youth activities in the local area, oversees providers, and carries out other duties authorized by the local board such as forging linkages with educational agencies. Youth councils may also leverage additional public and private funds to supplement their WIA funding in order to provide comprehensive youth services. Once they are determined to be WIA eligible, youth receive an objective assessment of their academic level, skills, and service needs. Local youth programs then use the assessment to create each participant’s individual service strategy, which lays out employment goals, educational objectives, and necessary services. Every local youth program must offer the following 10 services, known as program elements, to eligible youth, though participants may receive different combinations of these elements depending on their service strategy. Labor groups the 10 required program elements around four major themes: 1. tutoring, study skills training, and instruction leading to completion of secondary school, including dropout prevention, 2. alternative school services, Preparing for and succeeding in employment 3. summer employment linked to academic and occupational learning, 4. paid and unpaid work experiences, including internships and job 5. occupational skills training, Developing the potential of young people as citizens and leaders 6. leadership development, which may include community service and peer-centered activities encouraging responsibility, 7. supportive services (such as child care and housing assistance), 8. adult mentoring for at least 12 months that may occur both during and after program participation, 9. follow-up upon program completion for at least 12 months, and 10. comprehensive guidance and counseling. Eligible youth may obtain these services directly from approved youth service providers or through WIA’s one-stop system, which serves as a gateway to a variety of employment and training services. In addition to helping WIA youth gain access to the 10 program elements, the one-stop system also provides all youth with basic services, whether or not they are eligible for WIA. Any young person may walk into a one-stop center and make use of the center’s career resources and obtain information on and referrals to other providers. While one-stop centers are designed primarily to serve those 18 and older, some states have established one-stops that serve only youth, as we reported previously. Labor provides guidance to help states and local areas implement WIA. Labor’s guidance includes issuing annual Training and Employment Guidance Letters on the youth program in general as well as on specific topics, sponsoring WIA Learning Exchanges in every region, and maintaining a Web site for promising and effective practices. Labor responds to requests for clarification or additional information by phone or e-mail or at conferences. Labor’s guidance often includes promising and effective practices to reinforce state and local flexibility under WIA to tailor programs to best meet youths’ needs. The law requires that states and local areas collect performance information on seven youth measures, which are separated for younger and older youth (see table 1). All seven youth measures apply to both statewide and local performance. WIA performance information is collected from service providers and flows upward to the local boards, then to state boards or agencies, and finally to Labor. Local performance data are aggregated and entered into a state’s own automated data system that tracks the activities of individual WIA participants. States use two mechanisms to report performance to Labor: WIASRD, a database of individual records containing activity and outcome information for each registered participant that has exited WIA, and state annual reports. Labor uses the state annual reports to track states’ progress in meeting negotiated performance goals. Labor then awards monetary incentives to states that meet or exceed their performance goals and sanctions states that fail to meet at least 80 percent of each goal in two consecutive years. Most local areas used WIA youth program services for a range of approaches to prevent academic failure and school dropouts, emphasizing learning-related summer services that were coordinated through case managers and multiple service providers. Nationally, about 70 percent of youth served were in school, according to local boards responding to our survey. For in-school youth, local boards provided summer employment services linked to classroom learning more often than for out-of-school youth, while services for this latter population more often included occupational skills training and supportive services. Local boards reported that most youth received services primarily from community organizations and educational institutions. These providers were most likely to subcontract or make informal arrangements with other organizations to deliver the full range of WIA services to youth participants. Overall, local areas’ approach to serving youth was to supplement schools’ dropout prevention efforts to keep youth connected to an educational system, according to state and local workforce and education officials. WIA allows states and local areas to determine the proportion of in-school and out-of school youth to be served, requiring only that they spend at least 30 percent of funds for out-of-school youth. Labor reported that with some exceptions, states chose to focus the majority of resources on in- school youth, and our survey showed that about 81 percent of local areas served more in-school youth than out-of-school youth. Nationally, about 70 percent of youth served were in school, according to local boards we surveyed. However, this percentage varied across the nation, as shown in figure 1. For example, 38 percent of youth served in South Dakota were in school, compared with 86 percent in Nebraska. According to officials in four states that we visited, WIA youth programs primarily targeted in-school youth because recruiting and retaining out-of- school youth for the WIA program was much more difficult and expensive. For example, officials from a rural area in Ohio had difficulty identifying and retaining out-of-school youth whose contact information changes frequently, and Labor reports that the average cost of serving an out-of- school youth under the WIA program is about $4,000 a year, twice as much as for an in-school youth. Officials from other local areas we visited considered other factors. A local official in Louisiana said that in-school youth are interested in the WIA program, unlike out-of-school youth, who are difficult to engage. In contrast, a rural area in Virginia chose to focus primarily on out-of-school youth because so few services were available for this population. The Administration has proposed amending the WIA youth program to focus more resources on out-of-school youth. Department of Education officials said that WIA’s services to in-school youth were not unique, since schools already offer various services to their students to deter them from dropping out. While Education officials said that the department’s grants geared exclusively toward dropout prevention would be insufficient to address the national dropout problem, they also stated that funding is available under many Education programs that could be used for dropout prevention activities. However, local workforce and education officials we spoke with in three states we visited said that they were either unaware of or unable to gain access to other available federal resources that could be used to provide intensive services to at-risk youth. In New Hampshire, for example, officials told us that WIA provides the only dropout prevention program, and that they were unaware of other available education dropout prevention resources. State and local workforce and education officials we spoke with in the five states we visited said that WIA funding complemented rather than duplicated education services and was critical in preventing in-school youth from dropping out of school. For example, in a rural area in Ohio, workforce officials stated that the WIA program was the only dropout prevention program and that WIA provided students with their only chance at academic and career success. In addition, they said that WIA’s services were more intensive and comprehensive, and were delivered in a one-on-one setting where each student received individualized attention. In one urban school in Virginia, there was 1 WIA counselor for 50 eligible in-school youth, compared to 1 school counselor for as many as 300 students. Local areas tailored services provided to youth based on their needs, emphasizing different services, depending on whether youth were in or out of school.