Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned from Program,	 
but Labor Needs to Make Data Available (09-DEC-05, GAO-06-53).	 
                                                                 
The Youth Opportunity Grant program (YO) represented an 	 
innovative approach to improving education and employment	 
opportunities for at-risk youth by targeting resources in high	 
poverty areas and incorporating strategies that experts have	 
identified as effective for serving this population. The	 
Department of Labor (the Department) awarded 36 grants in 2000,  
and the program continued for 5 years. The Department had used a 
similar approach on a smaller scale in previous programs, but	 
little information is available on the impact of these other	 
programs. In order to understand what can be learned from the	 
Youth Opportunity Grant program, GAO examined the grantees'	 
implementation of the program, challenges they faced, and what is
known about the program's outcomes and impact. To view selected  
results from GAO's Web-based survey of the Program Directors, go 
to GAO-06-56SP (http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-56SP).  
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-53						        
    ACCNO:   A42939						        
  TITLE:     Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned from    
Program, but Labor Needs to Make Data Available 		 
     DATE:   12/09/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Educational grants 				 
	     Employment assistance programs			 
	     Federal grants					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Youth						 
	     Youth employment programs				 
	     Youth Opportunity Grants				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-53

     

     * Results in Brief
     * Background
     * Grantees Carried Out the Program Using a Variety of Approach
          * Grantees Adapted Program's Design to Their Particular Circum
          * Grantees Used Collaboration and Invention to Varying Degrees
          * Grantees Actively Recruited Youth, Including the Hard to Ser
     * Grantees Used Program Design to Address Major Challenges, bu
          * Grantees Felt Challenged to Set Up Program in Time Allotted,
          * Grantees Had Difficulties Establishing an Information Report
          * Grantees Used Their Discretion to Address Community-Based Ch
          * Service Needs of Participants Presented Challenges, but Tail
     * Grantees and Others Reported That Participants and Their Com
          * Grantees Reported Data Showing Some Participants Advanced Th
          * Grantees and Others Believe Their Communities Moved toward P
          * Department of Labor's Study of Program Impact Has Not Been C
     * Conclusions
     * Recommendation for Executive Action
     * Agency Comments
          * Survey of Youth Opportunity Grant Program Directors
          * Department of Labor Management Information System (MIS)
     * GAO Contact
     * Staff Acknowledgments
     * GAO's Mission
     * Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
          * Order by Mail or Phone
     * To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * Congressional Relations
     * Public Affairs

Report to Congressional Requester

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

December 2005

YOUTH OPPORTUNITY GRANTS

Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but Labor Needs to Make Data
Available

Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity Grants
rants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity
Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity
Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity
Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity
Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity
Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity
Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity
Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity
Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity
Grants Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity Grants

GAO-06-53

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3
Background 4
Grantees Carried Out the Program Using a Variety of Approaches 10
Grantees Used Program Design to Address Major Challenges, but Found
Start-up Time to be Short 16
Grantees and Others Reported That Participants and Their Communities Made
Progress, but the Program's Impact Is Still under Study 20
Conclusions 23
Recommendation for Executive Action 24
Agency Comments 24
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 26
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Labor 28
Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 29
Related GAO Products 30

Table

Table 1: YO Program Areas, Corresponding Youth Activities, and Examples of
Implementation 14

Figures

Figure 1: Location of Youth Opportunity Grantees 6
Figure 2: Key Components of Youth Opportunity Grant Program 8
Figure 3: Photos of YO Centers 12
Figure 4: Number of Youth Who Signed up for, Participated in, and Achieved
at Least One Educational or Employment Goal of the Program 21

Abbreviations

CIMC California Indian Manpower Consortium ISY In-school youth MIS
Management information system OIG Office of Inspector General OSY
Out-of-school youth YO Youth Opportunity Grants

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

December 9, 2005 December 9, 2005

The Honorable Arlen Specter Chairman Subcommittee on Labor, Health and
Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies The Honorable Arlen
Specter Chairman Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Committee on
Appropriations United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman: Dear Mr. Chairman:

More than 5 million youth between the ages of 16 and 24 were jobless and
out of school in 2001, according to a recent study,1 and young people
living in high poverty areas face particularly difficult barriers to
employment and education. A variety of factors make this population hard
to serve, including low levels of academic attainment, limited work
experience, and a scarcity of jobs in their communities. Much remains to
be learned about the best ways to help these youth connect with education
and employment opportunities. A 2003 report by the White House Task Force
for Disadvantaged Youth concluded that a lack of rigorously collected
program evaluation data has limited the potential for gaining insight into
the strategies that are most effective for serving these youth. More than
5 million youth between the ages of 16 and 24 were jobless and out of
school in 2001, according to a recent study,1 and young people living in
high poverty areas face particularly difficult barriers to employment and
education. A variety of factors make this population hard to serve,
including low levels of academic attainment, limited work experience, and
a scarcity of jobs in their communities. Much remains to be learned about
the best ways to help these youth connect with education and employment
opportunities. A 2003 report by the White House Task Force for
Disadvantaged Youth concluded that a lack of rigorously collected program
evaluation data has limited the potential for gaining insight into the
strategies that are most effective for serving these youth.

One program that explored innovative strategies was the Youth Opportunity
Grant program, authorized under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.2
This was a 5-year, $1 billion program aimed at increasing the educational
attainment and long-term employment of youth residing in impoverished
areas. The program was the successor to several prior demonstration
programs that were based on a similar model. Through the Youth Opportunity
Grants awarded under the program, the Department of Labor targeted funds
to 36 localities with high poverty rates and employed a comprehensive
approach for attempting to improve opportunities for at-risk youth living
in these communities. All 14 to 21 year-olds residing in the target areas,
regardless of income, were eligible to receive services, One program that
explored innovative strategies was the Youth Opportunity Grant program,
authorized under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.2 This was a 5-year,
$1 billion program aimed at increasing the educational attainment and
long-term employment of youth residing in impoverished areas. The program
was the successor to several prior demonstration programs that were based
on a similar model. Through the Youth Opportunity Grants awarded under the
program, the Department of Labor targeted funds to 36 localities with high
poverty rates and employed a comprehensive approach for attempting to
improve opportunities for at-risk youth living in these communities. All
14 to 21 year-olds residing in the target areas, regardless of income,
were eligible to receive services, and once enrolled, could usually remain
in the program as long as needed. The program design included many of the
strategies experts have suggested are effective in serving at-risk youth,
including providing a safe place for young people to go, assigning a key
adult to monitor their progress, and offering a wide array of services.
The program also provided a system for grantees to report performance
information and included plans for an extensive evaluation study. The
program began in 2000 and was funded for 5 years.

1 Andrew Sum, Ishwar Khatiwada, Nathan Pond, and Mykhaylo Trub'skyy, Left
Behind in the Labor Market: Labor Market Problems of the Nation's Out of
School, Young Adult Populations. Center for Labor Market Studies
(Northeastern University: November 2002).

2 Pub. Law. No. 105-220.

In order to understand what can be learned from the Youth Opportunity
Grant program, you asked us to examine the following: (1) How did grantees
implement the Youth Opportunity Grant program? (2) What challenges did
they face, and what can be learned from their experiences in addressing
them? (3) What is known about the outcomes and impact of this program,
both on the participants and on their communities?

To answer these questions, we surveyed the 36 Youth Opportunity Grant
program directors, visited 7 grantees, and analyzed program data provided
by the Department of Labor. All of the program directors completed the
survey, which we conducted between March and May 2005.3 We conducted five
in-depth site visits to grantees, during which we interviewed program
administrators, staff, youth, and other members of the community. We also
toured youth opportunity centers, in-school facilities, and observed
program activities. We selected these five sites according to the
proportionate representation of urban, rural, and Native American grantees
as well as for their geographic distribution. We briefly visited two
additional grantees while pretesting the survey, and at these sites, we
toured grantees' centers and spoke with program administrators, staff, and
youth. In addition, we reviewed agency documents and interviewed agency
officials and relevant experts. To address the third question regarding
outcomes and impact, we also analyzed electronic data the Department of
Labor collected from the grantees in a management information system
developed specifically for the program.

We conducted our work from September 2004 through November 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

3 To view selected results from the survey, go to GAO-06-56SP.

                                Results in Brief

Grantees carried out the Youth Opportunity Grant program-which was
designed in part to enhance the local infrastructure of youth services-in
a variety of ways. As outlined in the program design, grantees set up
centers in the target areas that served as focal points for the program
and housed a core staff of trained youth workers who provided case
management and individualized services to participants. Because the target
areas varied in size, some grantees had 1 center while other, more
geographically-dispersed grantees had as many as 40. Grantees also offered
participants a range of youth services in the areas of education,
occupational training, leadership development, and support services. Youth
could participate in an array of activities in these areas, from college
tours and subsidized employment to community service projects and
health-related workshops. Grantees collaborated with other organizations
to deliver some of these services, such as arranging for youth to attend
GED preparation classes at a local agency. In many cases, grantees also
developed unique programming to fill gaps in available services. One
grantee started a charter high school, the only one of its kind in that
city. All of the grantees tracked the activities of participants and
transmitted the information to a reporting system administered by the
Department of Labor. In addition, many grantees used innovative methods to
recruit participants, such as placing outreach staff in malls and
providing work-related incentives for youth to participate.

Grantees faced challenges related to program start-up, conditions in their
communities, and meeting the service needs of the youth; however, certain
features of the program design such as local discretion and individualized
services, helped grantees address these challenges. Most of the grantees
reported that it was difficult to set up a center within the 7 months the
Department of Labor expected the programs to be operational and grantees
said that this quick start-up had an adverse effect on retaining
participants. As a consequence, grantees, experts, and agency officials
said that programs could have benefited from additional time to plan. In
addition, although most grantees found it difficult to establish an
information-reporting system, some of them ultimately found it useful for
their own program management purposes. Most grantees reported that
existing conditions in their communities were problems-such as violence,
drugs, and lack of jobs-but grantees used the discretion afforded to them
by the program to devise a range of approaches to address the problems.
For example, a rural grantee responded to limited employment opportunities
in its area by subsidizing positions with local businesses and providing
the youth transportation to jobs in other locales. Additionally, grantees
told us that the obstacles facing their clients-such as low academic
achievement, health problems, and lack of family support-made it difficult
for the youth to move forward, but found aspects of the program's
design-such as case management and individualized services-useful in
helping the youth deal with these barriers. For example, one grantee
trained case managers to conduct mental health assessments of the youth
and, when deemed appropriate, arranged for a professional counselor to
provide therapy at the center.

Grantees and others reported that the participants and their communities
made progress toward the education and employment goals of the program;
however, a formal assessment of the program's impact is still under study.
Data provided by the grantees show that the Youth Opportunity Grant
program enrolled about 91,000 youth nationwide, a number of whom
subsequently completed high school, entered college, or found employment.
In addition, grantees and others told us that the program benefited their
communities. However, in the absence of a systematic impact analysis, it
is not known whether the events they cited would have occurred without the
program. The Department of Labor contracted for a $24 million evaluation
of the program that included plans for an impact analysis. However, agency
officials are unsure if the impact analysis will be completed as
originally planned due to the Department's allocations being less than
expected.

In order to learn from this innovative program and continue to improve
efforts to serve at-risk youth, we recommend the Secretary of Labor take
the actions necessary to complete the impact analysis of the Youth
Opportunity Grant program and release the impact data and all related
research reports from the program's evaluation. In comments on GAO's draft
report, the Department of Labor agreed with our recommendation and
indicated that it plans to complete the impact analysis and publish all
related reports.

                                   Background

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 authorized Youth Opportunity Grants
(YO), a $1 billion, 5-year program aimed at increasing the educational
attainment and long-term employment of youth residing in high poverty
areas. The program was designed to assist at-risk, hard-to-serve youth and
the communities in which they live by concentrating resources into a
targeted geographic area. YO expanded on earlier demonstration programs
that were based on a similar design, the most recent of which were known
as Kulick grants. The Department of Labor (the Department) announced the
36 YO grantees4-24 urban, 6 rural, and 6 Native American-in February 2000
and set a goal for the grantees to have their programs operational by
September of that year. Although the Department originally planned to
continue to add grantees, funding for the program was eliminated in the
budget for fiscal year 2004. Figure 1 shows the 36 grantees by location.

4 For the purposes of this report, we refer to the entity that operated
the program as a grantee. The 36 recipients of the grants were workforce
investment boards, states, counties, cities, and other entities. Some
recipients contracted out the operations of the program, while others
directly offered services to youth.

Figure 1: Location of Youth Opportunity Grantees

Note: In Robeson County, N.C., and Imperial County, Calif., the program
only operated in certain areas of the county.

The Department of Labor's stated goals for the YO program were to increase
educational attainment and promote long-term employment of youth in the
target areas, as well as to improve the youth service delivery systems in
these communities. Specifically, grantees were expected to effect
increases in the rates of high school completion, college enrollment, and
employment, both for youth participating in the program and, by extension,
the overall target area. Grantees were also expected to facilitate the
delivery of services by partnering with other institutions in the
community, especially local schools and colleges, the juvenile justice
system, and private employers. The program was designed to allow grantees
to enhance the local infrastructure of youth services by filling in
critical service gaps, coordinating existing services, and, in the case of
some rural and tribal areas, developing an infrastructure where services
were limited.

Many of the YO program components were based on practices that experts
have identified as effective for working with at-risk youth, and the
design of the program supported flexibility and invention at the local
level. Based on a youth development framework that emphasizes a
comprehensive approach to meeting a young person's needs, the program
required YO grantees to offer a full range of education, employment, and
leadership development services as well as provide other supports to the
youth. Advocates and experts have also stressed that youth need a place to
gather where they feel comfortable and a sense of belonging. In this vein,
YO grantees were required to have at least one youth center in the target
community that would provide a focal point for services and activities as
well as a safe place for the youth to go. In addition, grantees were
expected to maintain a core staff of trained youth workers and to provide
follow up services to participants for at least 2 years after they
completed participation in program activities, which is in keeping with
the identified effective practice of providing youth access to a caring,
trusted adult for an extended period of time. Additionally, experts have
suggested youth benefit from the opportunity to continue a relationship
with a program for as long as they need. Similarly, the program had
flexible enrollment rules that allowed participants to remain enrolled
even through periods of inactivity. However, the program design allowed
grantees latitude in deciding many of the particulars of the program. For
example, grantees could choose how and by whom services would be
delivered, the number and location of the YO centers, and the institutions
with which they partnered. Figure 2 displays the key components of Youth
Opportunity Grant program.

Figure 2: Key Components of Youth Opportunity Grant Program

Like some prior demonstration programs that the Department of Labor has
administered, eligibility for YO was not based on income, but rather on
geographic residence. Youth between the ages of 14 and 21 living in the
target area were eligible for the program, regardless of income. In most
cases, the target areas were federally designated empowerment zones or
enterprise communities, which are, by definition, areas with high rates of
poverty.

The Department of Labor provided extensive, ongoing technical assistance
to grantees. The Department assigned grantees coaches with considerable
experience working in youth programs who helped grantees with a range of
issues, such as developing services and building partnerships. The
Department also collaborated with a private foundation to establish a
training institute that provided courses in youth development to more than
2,000 youth workers. In addition, the Department sponsored opportunities
for grantees to share best practices and strategies in regular directors'
meetings and conference calls and through peer-to-peer training sessions.

The Department laid the foundation for collecting performance data on the
program by setting up a management information system (MIS). The
Department collected performance data on the YO program in a centralized,
electronic system. Grantees submitted information to fulfill requirements
of the Workforce Investment Act, which mandated that grantees report on
seven performance measures related to employment, retention, earnings,
attainment of skills, and attainment of credentials. In addition to these,
grantees reported on interim measures developed by the Department to gauge
the progress of participants as they moved through the program. These
measures were designed to document youth participation in activities and
other intermediate milestones.

The Department had funded several prior programs premised on a geographic
and community concept similar to that of the YO, although on a much
smaller scale, but little information is available on the impact of these
demonstration programs. Although evaluations were conducted of these
earlier programs, the impact studies were either incomplete or not
released. The first of these demonstrations, Youth Opportunities
Unlimited, was evaluated and the results published, but the study did not
include a systematic analysis of impact based on comparison groups. The
funding for the second demonstration, Youth Fair Chance, was cut 2 years
into the program, and although the evaluation study was published, it was
based on only 2 of the planned 5 years of the program. As a result, the
authors of this study advised that the findings should be interpreted
cautiously. The most recent of the demonstration programs was known as the
Kulick grants. The Department has prepared an evaluation of the Kulick
grants, but has not yet released the results publicly.

For the Youth Opportunity Grants, the Department set up an extensive
effort in 2000 to collect and analyze information to assess the program's
impact. The Department contracted for a $24 million evaluation study that
included plans to estimate the impact of the program by comparing key
characteristics in the YO communities and comparable areas that did not
receive YO grants. It was to begin in 2000, and the final report was
originally scheduled to be completed in July 2005. The study was designed
to differentiate between those observed changes in participants and the
communities that resulted from the program and those that would have
occurred even without the program's intervention.

         Grantees Carried Out the Program Using a Variety of Approaches

Grantees adapted key elements of the program's design to their particular
circumstances and used a variety of approaches in providing services and
conducting outreach. Grantees set up centers that varied widely in terms
of number and other characteristics where youth could receive services and
participate in activities. The centers housed a core staff who provided
case management and helped plan individualized services for youth. Staff
numbers and duties differed between grantees. Most grantees used the
management information system (MIS) provided by the Department of Labor to
submit program data to the Department, but some used their own systems.
Most grantees used a combination of approaches to provide youth services,
including collaborating with other organizations and, when they deemed it
necessary, developing services of their own. To reach hard-to-serve target
population, grantees used a variety of recruiting techniques, ranging from
the conventional to the innovative.

Grantees Adapted Program's Design to Their Particular Circumstances

The centers set up under the terms of the grant varied widely in number
and character. Because the target communities varied in size, some
grantees had 1 center while other, more geographically dispersed grantees
had as many as 40. The centers were intended to serve as the hub of the
local programs, and the types of activities offered in them differed
considerably. One center we visited in rural Louisiana had a variety of
recreational facilities, such as a basketball court and recreation room,
in addition to a classroom, computer lab, and staff offices. Youth
participating in this program told us nothing like these facilities had
existed for them before the YO program. On the other hand, a center we
visited in Houston resembled a traditional career center, with computer
kiosks set up near staff offices where the youth could undertake job
searches and skills assessments. Houston officials said they had formerly
offered some recreational activities on site, but found them to be
duplicative of other services available in the neighborhood. Some grantees
provided still other facilities at their centers. For example, Baltimore
had an on-site health clinic and music recording studio. Some grantees
also had centers located within schools. The District of Columbia had
staff sited in a local high school, where they offered training and
support for youth. This in-school center was located in a large classroom,
with a staff office off to one side and furnished with a computer lab with
equipment purchased by the grantee. Figure 3 depicts photos of two youth
opportunity grant centers we visited.

Figure 3: Photos of YO Centers

The centers housed staff who varied substantially in number and makeup.
Houston divided staff duties between as many as 115 people working in 4
centers. In this program, "personal service representatives" provided case
management and identified youths' goals and training needs, and
"employment counselors" assisted youth with job searches and conducted
follow-up services to youth who had been placed in employment. Other
grantees, however, had sites with only one person performing all of the
major staff duties. At the California Indian Manpower Consortium (CIMC)
Manchester Point Arena site, one youth worker handled recruitment, case
management, and job placement. Because of the remoteness of the site, this
youth worker also frequently drove a van, weekly transporting youth to
services as far as 4 hours away.

Most grantees used the management information system (MIS) provided by the
Department of Labor to record program data, but some used their own
systems and then submitted the data to the Department. Those who did not
use the Department MIS used a variety of systems. For example, Milwaukee
developed its own system with the aim of using it in conjunction with
other youth programs offered by its local Workforce Investment Board.5
Similarly, Hartford developed customized software that enabled it to share
information with other provider agencies and the schools in the community.

Grantees Used Collaboration and Invention to Varying Degrees in Delivering
Services

Grantees used a combination of approaches to establish a network of
educational, occupational, and other services for youth, but varied the
extent to which they relied on other providers. Grantees availed
themselves of existing services, either through formal arrangements or by
referring participants to other organizations in the community. Kansas
City arranged for youth to attend classes at other local agencies to help
prepare for the GED exam. Similarly, Baltimore referred young women who
needed interview clothing to a local charity organization. Most grantees
also collaborated with other institutions to provide some services. San
Antonio partnered with a local community college to establish academies in
which youth could spend half a day on their home campuses and half a day
at the community college, allowing them to earn a certificate or associate
degree in areas such as aviation or biotechnology. Houston purchased
credit retrieval software for local high schools that students could use
to complete their academic requirements for graduation. In addition,
grantees originated programs to fill perceived gaps in services. Memphis
established its own charter school with an emphasis on the arts in order
to provide alternative education opportunities for the youth, one of the
emphasized youth activities in the program. To provide leadership
development opportunities, one of the CIMC sites sponsored a cemetery care
project. In this project, participants worked with the tribal elders to
make a map of the local cemetery with the names of the deceased because
cemeteries on this reservation did not have headstones. Table 1 shows
youth activities and examples of how grantees implemented the activities.

5 As stated in the Workforce Investment Act, a local Workforce Investment
Board is an entity designated to set policy for the statewide workforce
system within the local area.

Table 1: YO Program Areas, Corresponding Youth Activities, and Examples of
Implementation

YO program area     Youth activities      Example of implementation        
Improving           Tutoring, study       Birmingham created an intensive  
educational         skills training, and  9-week dropout prevention        
achievement         instruction,          program called Operation Yes     
                       including dropout     that targeted 8th, 9th, and 10th 
                       prevention strategies graders functioning one or more  
                                             grade levels below their current 
                                             grade. It combined academic      
                                             remediation with job readiness   
                                             training, life skills sessions,  
                                             and a paid work experience.      
                       Alternative secondary Cleveland partnered with their   
                       school services       local school district to offer   
                                             on-site the Twilight School      
                                             program, a diploma-track high    
                                             school for dropouts. The program 
                                             offered mastery-based credit     
                                             classes at a time and in a       
                                             setting conducive to these       
                                             youth.                           
Preparation for and Summer employment     Louisville partnered with the    
success in          opportunities         local bar association to provide 
employment          directly linked to    summer internships for           
                       academic and          interested YO participants.      
                       occupational learning 
                       Paid and unpaid work  Boston developed the             
                       experiences,          Transitional Employment Services 
                       including internships program, a four-tiered approach  
                       and job shadowing     to employment training and job   
                                             placement. Youth could progress  
                                             from the lowest tier, which      
                                             focused on basic employability   
                                             skills and gaining experience    
                                             through community service        
                                             projects, to the highest level,  
                                             which focused on helping youth   
                                             find unsubsidized employment.    
                       Occupational skills   Moloka'i partnered with a local  
                       training              fishpond to give youth hands-on  
                                             experience in areas such as      
                                             basic computing, seaweed         
                                             farming, aquaculture, carpentry, 
                                             and plumbing.                    
Services to develop Leadership            Brockton trained youth to be     
the potential of    development           mediators and youth coordinators 
youth as citizens   opportunities         to resolve conflicts at the YO   
and leaders                               center and in their community.   
                                             The program was funded through a 
                                             grant from the Attorney          
                                             General's office.                
Supports for youth  Supportive services   Cook Inlet Tribal Council        
                                             created the Summer Bridging      
                                             Institute, a program that        
                                             brought youth from small         
                                             villages who had been accepted   
                                             to the University of Alaska,     
                                             Anchorage to campus before the   
                                             start of the fall semester. The  
                                             program offered youth the chance 
                                             to acclimate to urban campus     
                                             life and to bond with other      
                                             students, with the goal of       
                                             increasing the likelihood they   
                                             would stay in college.           
                       Follow up services    Houston switched from following  
                       for at least 24       up quarterly to following up     
                       months                monthly with youth who had been  
                                             placed in employment. Staff      
                                             found it was easier to keep      
                                             track of the youth if they       
                                             contacted them more frequently.  
                       Adult mentoring       Southeast Arkansas assigned      
                                             adult mentors to youth according 
                                             to similar interests or career   
                                             goals. Adults spent at least 2   
                                             hours per week with the youth    
                                             and reported their activities to 
                                             the program through written      
                                             documentation.                   
                       Comprehensive         Baltimore arranged for a         
                       guidance and          community organization to hold   
                       counseling            weekly support groups for young  
                                             fathers. A service specialist    
                                             presented a parenting education  
                                             curriculum, with group sessions  
                                             intended to improve the          
                                             involvement of fathers in the    
                                             lives of their children.         

Source: Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and GAO analysis of documents
from Department and grantees.

Grantees also used an array of strategies to help youth find long-term
educational or occupational opportunities and to follow up with
participants after they exited the program. Some grantees had staff
specifically devoted to finding appropriate employment opportunities and
connecting youth with these opportunities. For example, Milwaukee created
the position of job developer, who identified potential employers and
spoke to them directly about the youth in the program. Grantees also used
a number of methods for helping youth enroll in post-secondary
institutions, such as conducting college tours, assisting with financial
aid forms, and placing support staff on college campuses. The statutory
provision authorizing the YO program required grantees to provide
follow-up services for 2 years after the youth completed participation in
program activities. Grantees recorded on a quarterly basis the employment
and education status of the youth who had completed participation in the
program, for example, if they were in school or working at the time of
contact. Some grantees contacted youth more frequently. Staff in Baltimore
told us they varied the frequency depending on the degree to which they
regarded the young person to be at some risk. One might be contacted
monthly, while another would be checked on nearly every day.

Grantees Actively Recruited Youth, Including the Hard to Serve, and Used
Incentives to Draw and Maintain Involvement

Grantees recruited youth, including traditionally difficult to serve
populations, by creating connections with other youth-serving agencies.
Milwaukee operated a juvenile justice project to help youth coming out of
the corrections system to reintegrate into the community. Personnel at a
local correctional facility worked with program staff to identify those
due for release who were expecting to live within the geographic target
area of the program. Program staff traveled to the facility to conduct an
orientation session and then worked with the youth, corrections officials,
and parents to develop a reintegration plan. The services offered to them
were similar to those offered to all of the YO participants.

Grantees also used a variety of innovative methods to recruit
participants. Since many of the youth were disconnected from both school
and work, as one grantee told us, they could be not only hard to serve,
but hard to find. Some grantees went beyond conventional outreach
activities of mailers and radio advertisements and conducted community
walking campaigns using staff to saturate shopping malls and other areas
where youth congregate. Others used youth to lead recruitment. In some
cases, a grantee used employment as an inducement to link youth to other
activities the program offered. For example, Louisiana's work program
allowed participants to work more hours in subsidized employment the
further they advanced toward their educational goals. We were told many of
the youth lived in unstable economic conditions, and these needs had to be
addressed before the youth would focus on other areas, such as education.
In other cases, grantees used cash or non-monetary rewards to encourage
participation. In Houston, youth could attend special events, such as a
basketball game, if they participated in the program a minimum number of
hours.

  Grantees Used Program Design to Address Major Challenges, but Found Start-up
                                Time to be Short

Grantees were able to address a variety of challenges in setting up the
program and delivering services to youth using local discretion, flexible
enrollment rules, and other aspects of the program's design, but they and
others said a longer start-up period would have been beneficial. Most
grantees found it difficult to establish centers and retain participants
in their programs. They felt that these challenges were compounded by
expectations for a quick start-up, and subsequently they and Department
officials felt more planning time would have been beneficial. Grantees
also had difficulty establishing an information-reporting system, but once
in place, found it was helpful for program management purposes. Conditions
in the communities such as violence and lack of jobs presented a challenge
to most grantees, but they took advantage of the local discretion built
into the program to develop strategies to address them. Grantees also
cited as an obstacle the vast service needs of many of the youth the
program was intended to serve, but case management, individualized
services, and flexible enrollment rules were useful in dealing with them.

Grantees Felt Challenged to Set Up Program in Time Allotted, and More Planning
Time Would Have Been Beneficial

The majority of grantees reported that finding or renovating centers was a
challenge. Many grantees did not have suitable sites in their communities
for use as centers, and some put considerable effort into renovating
existing structures. In the extreme, the grantee in Alaska renovated 40
centers in remote communities not accessible by road and shipped equipment
and material by air. In a few cases, grantees did not have a permanent
building until after the first year of the program. In Boston, the program
was housed in temporary facilities for a period of time because a
permanent center could not be completed for the program's opening.

Another challenge identified by most grantees was retaining participants,
which grantees linked in part to expectations from the Department to start
to enroll youth quickly. The Department set a goal to recruit 3,000
participants nationwide within the first few months of the program, or a
little less than 100 youth per grantee. Some grantees said they felt
rushed to meet recruitment goals and told us they recruited many youth who
were not committed to the program. In addition, several directors
mentioned that they felt they were asked to serve participants before
their programming was fully developed, a situation that as one expert
commented, was akin to asking grantees to "fly the plane before they were
finished building it." We were told that, in these situations, some youth
became disenchanted with the program and left because of the limited
offerings the center presented early on.

Grantees, agency officials, and experts said a longer planning period
would have been beneficial. Grantees had an 7 month window between the
announcement of the grant recipients and the Department's target date for
having the programs operational. For example, two grantees with whom we
spoke said about three additional months would have been necessary for
them to meet the goals set out by the Department. Agency officials also
told us that grantees were pushed to start-up too quickly and could have
benefited from more time to plan. Agency officials said it would have been
appropriate to give grantees more time to meet the Department's initial
goals.

Grantees Had Difficulties Establishing an Information Reporting System, but
Found It Useful Once in Place

Most grantees reported that establishing an information reporting system
was challenging, and grantees told us it would have been useful for the
Department to have had a workable system in place at the outset of the
program. The management information system (MIS) initially provided by the
Department was fraught with problems. Department officials told us it took
about 18 months to iron out the kinks. In addition, the Office of
Inspector General identified inconsistencies in the way grantees were
recording data early on.6 Although the Department eventually developed an
improved system, grantees said it would have been better had the MIS been
in place from the beginning. Not having a system in place created
additional burden for the grantees. For example, Louisiana developed its
own system to collect information until an updated system was available
and then manually transferred 11 months of data into the new MIS.

Once in place, grantees additionally used the information system for their
own program management purposes such as to improve performance and
reinforce accountability. The Hartford grantee was able to integrate its
system with the school district, allowing case managers to track
attendance and grades to allow better monitoring of participant
achievements. The Hartford system also enabled program management to see
which case managers were most successful at engaging youth in the
activities required for the completion of their goals. Regarding
accountability, Portland used its information system to monitor the
performance of its contractors on a weekly basis.

6 Office of Inspector General, Department of Labor, Workforce Investment
Act, Youth Opportunity Program Audit, OIG Audit Report Number
06-03-001-03-390 (March 2003).

Grantees Used Their Discretion to Address Community-Based Challenges

Some of the major challenges also identified by grantees were problems
external to the program, yet affected their ability to deliver services.
Twenty-eight of the grantees reported on the survey that a lack of jobs in
the community was a challenge. In some areas, jobs were on the decline
because of shifts in the local economy or relocation of major employers.
For example, the grantee in San Francisco related that due to the dot-com
bust, youth in the program were competing with a skilled workforce willing
to fill entry level positions that would otherwise be available to youth.
In other areas, especially rural ones, there were few employers, let alone
large ones. In addition, 29 of 36 grantees reported on the survey that
risk factors such as violence, drugs, and gangs were challenges in
implementing the program. In some cases, these factors made it difficult
for participants to receive services. In one urban community, we were told
there were safety concerns with youth participating in evening activities
sponsored by the YO because they would have to return home after dark.

Local discretion built into the program design helped grantees respond to
external challenges. Within the structure of the program, grantees were
allowed some amount of latitude to develop responses to circumstances in
their communities, such as a scarcity of jobs. For example, the California
Indian Manpower Consortium created opportunities for youth to have work
experiences, such as subsidizing summer jobs with local business including
a campground and senior center or working with the tribe to place youth in
clerical positions. Similarly, grantees were able to develop services to
address specific risk factors in their communities. Imperial County
offered a curriculum series to help address interpersonal violence among
adolescents, an issue they had identified as particularly problematic in
their area. The series was designed to reduce impulsive and aggressive
behavior through empathy training, interpersonal problem solving, behavior
skill training, and anger management. In Milwaukee, the grantee addressed
safety concerns by renting vans to transport the youth to nighttime
events.

Service Needs of Participants Presented Challenges, but Tailored Services,
Individualized Planning, and Flexible Enrollment Rules Were Useful in Addressing
Them

Grantees identified as a major challenge the obstacles faced by their
clients, such as homelessness, lack of family support, mental health
problems, and low levels of academic attainment. Staff in Baltimore told
us homelessness was a frequent issue faced by youth in their area and
finding a place to sleep can preoccupy the youth and disrupt the learning
process. YO staff and others said that participants may lack support in
other areas of their lives, such as from their families. For example, one
grantee told us of a participant who was awarded a full scholarship to
college, but the parents would not sign the paperwork to receive the
money. Some youth also faced mental health issues, which prevented them
from moving forward in their lives. All of these factors, we were told,
could mean a slow start for youth who enrolled in the program. The
director of an alternative high school in Milwaukee told us that because
of the disorder in their lives, many of these youth may take a year just
to become comfortable in the program before they can even begin making any
forward progress.

Grantees found aspects of the program design such as case management,
individualized services, and flexible enrollment rules useful in
addressing the service challenges of participants. For example, grantees
used assessments to help determine the academic needs of clients and
provide each client with the appropriate individualized services.
Philadelphia designed a program in which each participant had a
personalized remediation plan based on the results of an evaluation test
and interview with an education coach. This plan was intended to build on
clients' strengths and accounted for their particular learning styles.
After the initial assessment, participants were reevaluated at regular
intervals to monitor their academic progress and goal attainment. The
curriculum was designed so that youth could increase at least one grade
level after 90 hours of instruction. In addition, both youth and community
members told us that YO staff were key in helping youth stay motivated and
guiding them through difficult situations. Grantees also found the
enrollment rules useful in working toward program goals. The program's
enrollment policy allowed most participants to continue to receive
services even if they experienced periods of inactivity. Staff in Houston
told us that the policy was a benefit to the youth because, unlike other
employment programs, YO did not end their relationship with youth who had
not been participating for a while.

Grantees and Others Reported That Participants and Their Communities Made
            Progress, but the Program's Impact Is Still under Study

Grantees and others reported that the participants and their communities
made advancements in education and employment; however, a formal
assessment of the program's impact is still under study. Data reported by
the grantees showed that a number of youth advanced their education while
they were participating in the program, such as completing high school.
Grantees also reported data showing a portion of the participants entered
unsubsidized employment after enrolling in the program. Similarly,
grantees and others believe their communities made advancements toward the
Department's stated education and employment goals of the program. In
addition, the majority of grantees reported that they made improvements in
the youth service delivery systems in their communities. The Department
funded an evaluation to assess the impact of the program, which was
designed to shed light on the extent to which observed changes can be
attributed to the program. However, the study has not yet been completed.

Grantees Reported Data Showing Some Participants Advanced Their Education and
Found Employment

Data reported by the grantees showed that a number of youth advanced their
education while they were participating in the program. Two of the
Department's primary goals of program were to increase the rates of high
school completion and college enrollment for the youth. Data that grantees
entered into the management information system (MIS) showed that of the
approximately 91,000 youth who signed up for in the program nationwide,
about 18,700 either completed high school or attained a GED after
enrolling in the program. In addition, about 11,700 youth entered college,
37 percent of whom were reported to be out of school when they initially
enrolled in the program. Youth with whom we spoke credited the program
with giving them a second chance to increase their education and to better
their employment opportunities. One Louisiana youth's comments typified
what we heard elsewhere from participants during our site visits, "YO is
the best thing that has happened to me. YO has given me a job and put a
little money in my pocket." He added, "YO has also been instrumental in
keeping me out of jail. Above all, YO has helped me realize that education
is important." Figure 4 summarizes enrollment, participation, education,
and employment data for youth in the program, as of June 2005.

Figure 4: Number of Youth Who Signed up for, Participated in, and Achieved
at Least One Educational or Employment Goal of the Program

Note: The five educational status and long-term placement categories are
not mutually exclusive.

Grantees reported data showing that a portion of the youth entered
unsubsidized employment after completing YO activities. Data from the MIS
show that about 17,300 youth were placed in employment that was not
subsidized by the program, 62 percent of whom were out of school when they
initially enrolled in the program. Grantees and others told us the job
readiness training that some youth received as part of the program was
particularly important in helping them get jobs. Employers we spoke with
told us they knew the youth that were sent to them by YO would be well
trained and ready to work. A local human resources manager for a national
chain of home improvement stores told us that he thought YO participants
were better prepared for employment than other residents of the area,
adding that they show up with better job skills and "soft" skills.

Grantees and Others Believe Their Communities Moved toward Program Goals

Grantees and others expressed the view that their communities had made
advancements in concert with the Department's education and employment
goals for the program. Almost all of the grantees reported that high
school completion, college enrollment, and youth employment rates improved
in their communities as a result of the program. Several grantees also
asserted that affecting the youth led to changes in the community. In
addition, community members with whom we spoke said the program helped
their communities make progress toward greater education and employment.
For example, a tribal leader in California told us that YO motivated the
youth in his tribe to stay in school. Similarly, one expert pointed to
some of the rural grantees who had many youth enroll in college, which she
said was especially important because of a lack of jobs in these areas.

The majority of grantees reported making improvements in the youth service
delivery systems in their communities. Some of the described changes were
to the service infrastructure in these communities. For example, San Diego
pointed out that it had created a multiservice youth center in a
neighborhood where none had existed before. Grantees cited other
improvements related to the mode of service delivery. Tucson reported that
prior to YO, it had funded three stand-alone youth programs, but now it
has a one-stop system with multiple entry points for delivering youth
services. Other grantees noted that their efforts to foster better
communication and collaboration among service providers had benefited the
youth. As the Portland grantee commented, by partnering with their local
employment department and community college system, they were able to
leverage staff to provide intensive job search and college preparation
services to youth. In other cases, local leaders credited the YO as a
catalyst for change in their community. For example, a school
superintendent in California told us that YO staff had helped to forge an
agreement between the school district and five Indian tribes in the area
to develop an education curriculum that would be more sensitive to the
tribes' cultures.

Department of Labor's Study of Program Impact Has Not Been Completed

While the Department of Labor funded an evaluation designed to assess the
impact of the program, it has not yet been completed. This was planned as
a 5-year, $24 million evaluation, which began in 2000. As part of the
evaluation, the Department conducted baseline and follow-up surveys of the
target areas, and gathered extensive descriptions of the 36 programs and
communities. The evaluation also included plans for an impact study that
was designed to compare YO participants and communities with other,
similar youth and communities that did not participate in YO. This type of
comparative analysis would be necessary to determine if the events
reported by grantees and others would have occurred in the absence of the
program. However, the evaluation is not finished. Moreover, agency
officials are unsure if the impact study that was to be part of the
evaluation will be completed. Due to departmental allocations being lower
than expected, the Department spent $1.9 million less than the full amount
of the original contract on the evaluation. Agency officials told us that
the impact study was likely to be scaled back because of the lower
allocation. The evaluation was originally scheduled to be completed in
July 2005. However, agency officials told us they do not expect the study
to be finished until June 2006.

                                  Conclusions

The Youth Opportunity Grant program was designed to help at-risk youth and
their communities by concentrating resources geographically and by
incorporating components that experts have suggested are effective in
assisting this population. To continue to improve the ability to serve
these youth, researchers and practitioners must be able to learn from the
most promising and innovative approaches in serving these youth, including
those used in the Youth Opportunity Grant program. The Department of Labor
has begun an evaluation of the program that includes many pieces of a
potentially useful study. Although informative, these pieces will not by
themselves answer the question of impact, in other words, whether the
described events would have occurred in the absence of the program. In
order to understand what effect, if any, the program had on these observed
events, it is necessary to have a systematic comparison with other,
similar communities that did not receive grants. The Department planned,
but has not yet completed, such an analysis as part of the evaluation. The
Department has an opportunity to contribute to the research on programs
for serving at-risk youth, if the evaluation study is completed and the
results made public. However, the Department has not taken full advantage
of past opportunities to release information on other programs based on a
similar model, such as the Kulick grants. Given the $1 billion investment
in this program-including almost $24 million for an evaluation effort-and
the need for rigorous data on these types of programs, the study should be
completed and the results should be made available. Unless the Department
completes the evaluation of the Youth Opportunity Grant program and
releases the results, researchers and practitioners will not be able to
fully realize the potential to learn from the program.

                      Recommendation for Executive Action

To continue to improve efforts to serve at-risk youth and in order that
researchers can evaluate the quality of information and determine possible
impact of the program, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor take the
actions necessary to complete the impact analysis of the Youth Opportunity
Grant program and release the data and all related research reports from
the program's evaluation.

                                Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor for its
review and comment. In its response, the Department agreed with our
conclusions and recommendation and indicated that it intends to complete
the impact analysis and publish all related reports from the Youth
Opportunity Grant program evaluation. A copy of the Department's response
is in appendix II. The Department also provided us with technical
comments, which we incorporated into the report where appropriate.

We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, relevant
congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov .

Please contact me at (415) 904-2272 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
III.

Sincerely yours,

David D. Bellis Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Appendix I: Methodology Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To accomplish our research objectives, we surveyed Youth Opportunity Grant
Program directors on the implementation of the Youth Opportunity Grants.
To augment information from our survey, we conducted five site visits of
programs. We chose sites for our visits to represent proportionately the
three grantee types (urban, rural, and Native American) as well as their
geographic distribution. The grantees we visited were the District of
Columbia, Houston, Milwaukee, rural Louisiana, and the California Indian
Manpower Consortium. During our visits we met with program administrators,
staff, and participants to learn their perspectives on program
implementation, challenges, outcomes, impact, and lessons learned. Also,
we interviewed local workforce board members, school officials, community
based service providers, private employers, and local government officials
to discuss their perspectives on the impact and other aspects of the
program. In addition, we toured Youth Opportunity Centers, in-school
facilities, and observed program activities. We briefly visited an
additional two grantees- Baltimore and Philadelphia-in the course of
pretesting the survey, and while at their sites, toured centers and spoke
with program administrators, staff, and participants. We gathered
additional information by reviewing agency documents including site
assessments and grant applications. We also interviewed agency officials
and other relevant experts, including researchers, representatives of
advocacy organizations, YO coaches, and former Department of Labor
officials. We performed our work from September 2004 to November 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We also investigated several possible sources of external data to
quantitatively measure outcomes and impact, but determined none of them
were feasible for our purposes. The data sets we reviewed were: Current
Population Survey, Common Core of Data, National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth, High School and Beyond, and American Community Survey.

Survey of Youth Opportunity Grant Program Directors

To learn about the implementation of the Youth Opportunity Grants, we
conducted a Web-based survey of all Youth Opportunity Grant Program
Directors. We asked directors about the usefulness of program components,
challenges they faced implementing the program and strategies used to deal
with them, and their opinion on the program's impact on participants and
communities. Additionally, we asked directors about the size and structure
of their programs, the manner in which they delivered services, and the
types of organizations with which their programs partnered. The survey
also included a series of questions about how programs maintained
information to help us determine the reliability of data in the Department
of Labor's management information system. We pretested the survey with
several program directors and modified the survey to take their comments
into account. All 36 program directors completed the survey, for a
response rate of 100 percent. We administered the survey between March 17
and May 31, 2005. To view selected results of the survey, go to
GAO-06-56SP.

Department of Labor Management Information System (MIS)

We used electronic data collected on the program by the Department of
Labor in a management information system (MIS) to describe the number of
youth in the program who achieved the Department's goals for the program,
such as high school completion, college enrollment, and long-term
education and employment placements. We have determined the MIS data are
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this study through discussions
with officials at the Department of Labor, in-depth interviews with MIS
staff during site visits, and responses to a comprehensive array of survey
items in which each grantee described their procedures for editing and
auditing the data they entered into the MIS. We analyzed the MIS data
using guidance provided to us by the Department.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor Appendix II: Comments
from the Department of Labor

Appendix III: GAOA Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

David Bellis, Director, (415) 904-2272, [email protected]

Staff Acknowledgments

David Lehrer, Assistant Director, and Anne Welch, Analyst-in-Charge,
managed this assignment and made significant contributions to all aspects
of the work. Dan Concepcion and Eleanor Johnson also made significant
contributions to this report. In addition, Kevin Jackson assisted in all
aspects of the survey of Program Directors and in reviewing external data
sources. Jerry Sandau and Cathy Hurley assisted in the analysis of the MIS
data and assessment of the MIS data reliability. Jessica Botsford provided
legal support, and Susan Bernstein provided writing assistance.

Related GAO Products Related GAO Products

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve Quality of
Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. GAO-04-308.
Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004.

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information
Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003

Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service Strategies,
but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development. GAO-02-413.
Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002.

(130405)

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-53 .

To view the full product, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact David Bellis at (415) 904-2272 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-06-53 , a report to congressional requester

December 2005

YOUTH OPPORTUNITY GRANTS

Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but Labor Needs to Make Data
Available

The Youth Opportunity Grant program (YO) represented an innovative
approach to improving education and employment opportunities for at-risk
youth by targeting resources in high poverty areas and incorporating
strategies that experts have identified as effective for serving this
population. The Department of Labor (the Department) awarded 36 grants in
2000, and the program continued for 5 years. The Department had used a
similar approach on a smaller scale in previous programs, but little
information is available on the impact of these other programs. In order
to understand what can be learned from the Youth Opportunity Grant
program, GAO examined the grantees' implementation of the program,
challenges they faced, and what is known about the program's outcomes and
impact. To view selected results from GAO's Web-based survey of the
Program Directors, go to GAO-06-56SP.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Labor take the actions necessary to
complete the impact analysis of the Youth Opportunity Grant program and
release the data and all related research reports from the program's
evaluation. In comments on GAO's draft report, the Department agreed with
GAO's recommendation to complete the impact analysis and publish all
related reports.

Grantees used a variety of approaches to build the infrastructure of the
YO program, provide services to at-risk youth, and conduct outreach
efforts. While grantees set up centers and trained core staff to deliver
services, they differed somewhat in their approaches, depending on
circumstances within their communities. In addition, grantees employed a
combination of strategies to provide youth services, including
collaborating with other providers and inventing unique programming. To
recruit this hard-to-serve target population, grantees used a range of
techniques, from partnering with juvenile justice agencies, to combing
malls for eligible youth.

Fast program start up, conditions in their communities, and the
characteristics and needs of the youth challenged the grantees;however
they used features of the program design to address some of these
difficulties. Many grantees struggled to set up the program, especially
within the Department's time frame. In addition, grantees felt encumbered
by the drugs, violence, and a lack of jobs in their communities as well as
the obstacles facing their clients, such as low academic achievement and
lack of family support. Grantees used the discretion and other components
built into the program design to address many of these challenges. For
example, in response to safety concerns, an urban grantee elected to
provide transportation for youth attending evening events. However,
grantees and others said more planning time would have been beneficial.

Grantees and others reported that the youth and their communities made
progress toward the YO program goals, but the program's impact is still
under study. Grantees reported that they had enrolled about 91,000 youth
nationwide, many of whom completed high school, entered college, or found
employment after enrolling in the program. In addition, grantees and
others said that the grants had benefited their communities. However,
without an impact analysis, it is not known whether these events would
have occurred in the absence of the program. The Department contracted for
a $24 million evaluation of the program that included plans for an impact
analysis; however, agency officials are unsure if the analysis will be
completed.

Manchester Point Arena Youth Opportunity Center, Calif.
*** End of document. ***