Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some of the	 
Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth to	 
Education and Employment (28-FEB-08, GAO-08-313).		 
                                                                 
While most young people successfully transition to adulthood, a  
significant number of youth are disconnected from school and	 
employment. These youth are more likely than others to engage in 
crime, become incarcerated, and rely on public systems of	 
support. Several federal agencies oversee a number of programs	 
and grants that assist local programs in serving this population 
at the local level. GAO reviewed the following: (1)		 
characteristics of locally operated programs that serve 	 
disconnected youth, (2) the key elements of locally operated	 
programs to which directors attribute their success in		 
reconnecting youth to education and employment, and (3) 	 
challenges involved in operating these programs and how federal  
agencies are helping to address these challenges. GAO interviewed
officials from four federal agencies, experts, and directors of  
39 local programs identified by agencies and experts as helping  
youth meet educational and employment goals.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-313 					        
    ACCNO:   A81150						        
  TITLE:     Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some of 
the Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth to	 
Education and Employment					 
     DATE:   02/28/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Education program evaluation			 
	     Educational standards				 
	     Employment assistance programs			 
	     Federal aid to states				 
	     Federal funds					 
	     Federal grants					 
	     Funds management					 
	     Higher education					 
	     Homelessness					 
	     Life skills training				 
	     Locally administered programs			 
	     Program management 				 
	     School dropouts					 
	     Teenagers						 
	     Youth employment programs				 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     Program implementation				 
	     WIA Youth Activities Program			 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-313

   

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

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. 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. 

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of 
Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

February 2008: 

Disconnected Youth: 

Federal Action Could Address Some of the Challenges Faced by Local 
Programs That Reconnect Youth to Education and Employment: 

Disconnected Youth: 

GAO-08-313: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-313, a report to the Chairman, Committee on 
Education and Labor, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

While most young people successfully transition to adulthood, a 
significant number of youth are disconnected from school and 
employment. These youth are more likely than others to engage in crime, 
become incarcerated, and rely on public systems of support. Several 
federal agencies oversee a number of programs and grants that assist 
local programs in serving this population at the local level. GAO 
reviewed the following: (1) characteristics of locally operated 
programs that serve disconnected youth, (2) the key elements of locally 
operated programs to which directors attribute their success in 
reconnecting youth to education and employment, and (3) challenges 
involved in operating these programs and how federal agencies are 
helping to address these challenges. GAO interviewed officials from 
four federal agencies, experts, and directors of 39 local programs 
identified by agencies and experts as helping youth meet educational 
and employment goals. 

What GAO Found: 

The 39 local programs GAO reviewed differed in their funding sources 
and program structure, yet shared some characteristics, such as years 
of experience serving youth. These programs received funding from 
multiple sources: federal, state, local, and private, although most 
relied on some federal funds. They were structured differentlyï¿½for 
example, some were community-based organizations that provided services 
on a daily basis, some were charter schools, and some offered 
residential living. Most of the programs were created to address local 
concerns such as youth homelessness or dropout rates, and many had at 
least 10 years of experience serving youth. 

Program directors GAO interviewed attributed their success in 
reconnecting youth to education and employment to several key elements 
of their programs. These included effective staff and leadership; a 
holistic approach to serving youth that addresses the youthï¿½s multiple 
needs; specific program design components, such as experiential 
learning opportunities and self-paced curricula; and a focus on 
empowering youth. 

Many of the 39 local program directors reported common challenges in 
operating their programsï¿½the complex circumstances of their 
participants, service gaps, funding constraints, and management of 
federal grantsï¿½that increased federal coordination efforts under way 
may help address. Most of the 15 directors that relied on Laborï¿½s 
Workforce Investment Act Youth funds reported that meeting performance 
goals within 1-year time frames that workforce investment boards often 
write into contracts hinders their ability to serve youth with great 
challenges, who may need more time to obtain skills. Labor officials 
reported that they intend for workforce investment boards to develop 
longer-term contracts to help programs serve hard-to-employ youth. 
Labor has provided limited technical assistance and is considering 
issuing guidance on this issue, but has not established a time frame to 
do so. Federal agencies have recently intensified their coordination 
efforts, which may help local programs faced with challenges managing 
across multiple federal grants. 

Figure: Key Elements of Local Programs Cited by 39 Program Directors in 
Reconnecting Youth to Education and Employment: 

This figure is a chart with illustration showing key elements of local 
programs cited by 39 program directors in reconnecting youth to 
education and employment. 

Staff and leadership: 
* Building strong relationships with youth; 
* Garner community support. 

Holistic comprehensive services: 
* Counseling; 
* Health services; 
* Child care; 
* Housing and food assistance. 

Program design components: 
* Experiential learning; 
* Self-paced curricula; 
* Incentives. 

Youth empowerment: 
* High expectations; 
* Youth involvement; 
* Clear code of conduct. 

Goal: Successful transition by youth to adulthood and self-sufficiency 
through education and employment. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by 39 local program 
directors: Images (Art Explosion). 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Department of Labor (Labor) work with states 
and workforce investment boards to better ensure they have the 
information and guidance needed to develop and implement contracts that 
allow local programs to serve youth who are in need of more assistance 
than others while still achieving performance goals. Labor agreed with 
our recommendation and identified several steps it plans to take to 
implement it. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-313. For more information, 
contact Cornelia Ashby at (202) 512-7215 or [email protected] 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Local Programs We Reviewed Differed in Their Funding Sources and 
Program Structure, yet Shared Some Characteristics: 

Directors of the 39 Local Programs Cited Similar Key Elements in 
Reconnecting Youth to Educational and Employment Goals: 

Directors We Interviewed Cited Service Gaps, Funding Constraints, and 
Federal Grant Management Challenges That Hindered Their Efforts; 
Federal Coordination Efforts Under Way May Help Address Some of These 
Issues: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: List of Local Programs Interviewed: 

Appendix II: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix III: Key Federal Grant Programs That Serve Disconnected Youth: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Key Federal Grant Programs That Serve Disconnected Youth: 

Table 2: Existing and New Common Measures for WIA Youth Program: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Primary Sources of Funding for the 39 Programs We Reviewed: 

Figure 2: Illustration of a Community Organization in Boston, 
Massachusetts: 

Figure 3: Illustration of a Charter School in Washington, D.C. 

Figure 4: Illustration of a Transitional Living Program in Portland, 
Oregon: 

Figure 5: Key Elements of Local Programs Cited by Program Directors in 
Reconnecting Youth to Education and Employment: 

Figure 6: Staff Working with Youth Participants at Various Work Sites: 

Figure 7: Example of a Local Job Corps Center's Holistic Approach to 
Providing Comprehensive Support Services: 

Figure 8: Workshop at a Local Program That Trains Out-of-School Youth 
in Construction: 

Figure 9: Gaps in Services for Disconnected Youth Reported by 39 
Program Directors: 

Figure 10: Programs Cite Multiple Challenges in Coordinating across 
Federal Grant Programs: 

Abbreviations: 

CCJJDP: Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention: 

GED: General Educational Development: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

WIA: Workforce Investment Act: 

YO: Youth Opportunity: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

February 28, 2008: 

The Honorable George Miller: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Education and Labor: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

A significant number of American youth are not in school and not 
working. Some of these young people may have become disconnected from 
education and employment through incarceration, aging out of foster 
care, dropping out of high school, or homelessness. As a result, these 
"disconnected" youth may face difficulties in successfully 
transitioning to adulthood and self-sufficiency.[Footnote 1] Not only 
does this lead to negative outcomes for the youth themselves, but for 
communities and the nation as a whole. Disconnected youth are more 
likely than other youth to engage in criminal activities, become 
incarcerated, and rely on public systems of support. 

Federal, state, and local governments as well as private entities are 
involved in helping to put these youth on a path to self-sufficiency 
through education and/or employment. Several federal departments 
oversee a number of federal grant programs in the areas of education, 
employment, foster care, juvenile justice, and homelessness that can 
serve this population at the local level. State and local governments 
assist in the delivery of services to youth at this local entry point. 
In addition, federal, state, and local collaborations exist that bring 
together various agencies and programs with the aim of better 
coordinating services to help these youth. 

To respond to your interest in the federal role in improving outcomes 
for disconnected youth, we looked at the following questions: (1) What 
are some characteristics of locally operated programs that serve 
disconnected youth? (2) What are the key elements of locally operated 
programs to which program directors attribute their success in 
reconnecting youth to education and employment? (3) What challenges are 
involved in implementing and operating these programs and how are 
federal agencies helping to address these challenges? 

To conduct this work, we asked federal agency officials and 11 experts 
on youth issues to identify local entities that are operating programs 
or initiatives with federal or other funding that have been successful 
in helping disconnected youth reach educational or employment goals. We 
asked the experts and agency officials, on the basis of their 
experience and expertise, to identify local programs that could serve 
as examples or models for expansion or replication; rigorous program 
evaluations were generally not available. The experts were selected for 
their understanding of and range of perspectives on youth issues as 
well as their knowledge of efforts under way at the local level. We 
identified and interviewed officials from four primary federal agencies 
that support programs working with this population: the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Justice, and Education. We 
selected these agencies based on their legislative mandate to 
administer relevant federal programs, our previous work, reports from 
the Congressional Research Service and the White House Task Force for 
Disadvantaged Youth,[Footnote 2] and discussions with federal 
officials. We reviewed relevant appropriation and other laws, 
regulations, and documents pertaining to the key federal programs and 
coordinating bodies involved with assisting disconnected youth, and 
synthesized information from interviews with appropriate federal 
officials. 

Out of 100 programs that were identified, we interviewed 39 directors 
of locally operated programs using a standard set of questions. We 
selected programs that were geographically diverse, and that 
represented both urban and rural locations. We also selected programs 
with a range of approaches to working with disconnected youth, such as 
employment skills training programs, alternative education programs, 
transitional living programs, and programs that targeted different 
subpopulations of disconnected youth in 16 states and the District of 
Columbia. See appendix I for a complete list of the 39 programs. We 
conducted in-person interviews with directors and youth participants in 
19 of these programs, and completed the remaining interviews with 
directors by phone. See appendix II for more information on our scope 
and methodology. We conducted this performance audit from May 2007 to 
February 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

The 39 local programs we reviewed received funding from a range of 
government and private sources, and differed in their program 
structure, yet shared some characteristics. These youth-serving 
programs received funding from federal, state, local, and private 
sources. Nearly half of the 39 local youth-serving programs we reviewed 
received a combination of funding from these sources, and all but 6 of 
the programs received some federal funding. Some federal funding 
sources required programs to follow a specific model or offer a 
standard set of services, while others allowed programs to use funding 
more flexibly. The programs also varied in their program structure. For 
example, several programs were community organizations that provided 
specific training for the youth at their organization during the day. 
Some were established as charter schools, and others were residential 
programs, most often providing transitional housing to runaway and 
homeless youth. Some of the programs were a combination of these 
different approaches. Within these different program structures, select 
programs also targeted their efforts to specific youth subpopulations, 
such as court-involved youth. Yet despite differences, these programs 
shared some specific characteristics. For example, all of the programs 
we reviewed were created to meet the needs of local youth such as 
addressing youth homelessness and high school dropout rates. Most of 
the programs had also operated for several years and provided ancillary 
services, such as counseling, in addition to employment and education 
assistance, to address the multiple needs of their youth participants. 

While varying types of local programs serve disconnected youth, program 
directors we interviewed reported similar elements of their programs 
that are key in reconnecting youth to education and employment, 
including effective staff and leadership, a holistic approach to 
serving youth that addresses their multiple needs, specific program 
design components, and a focus on empowering youth. Nearly all 39 
program directors cited effective staff as a key element in building 
supportive relationships with the youth in their programs. Many of the 
youth we spoke with told us that they continued to participate in their 
programs because the staff helped establish goals and provided a 
positive and supportive environment. In addition, program leadership 
also played a key role in maintaining successful programs and garnering 
community support. To address the multiple needs of the youth 
participants, to the extent possible, many programs approached the 
youth's needs holistically, incorporating support services, such as 
counseling, either on-site or in collaboration with other service 
providers in the community. Many program directors also attributed 
their success in working with youth to specific program design 
components, such as experiential learning, which helps to engage and 
retain youth by emphasizing concepts taught in the classroom with hands-
on learning opportunities through community service projects and on-
site training. Finally, program directors told us that their staff 
empowers youth participants by setting high expectations, establishing 
a clear code of conduct, and strengthening their leadership skills 
through various program operation activities, such as outreach and 
recruitment efforts. 

Many program directors also reported common challenges in implementing 
and operating their programs, specifically addressing the complex 
circumstances of their programs' participants, gaps in services at the 
community level, constraints on funding, and managing federal grants. 
The complex issues experienced by the youth--such as mental health 
issues and low academic skills--were frequently cited by program 
directors as challenges they face in reconnecting youth to educational 
and employment goals. For example, one program director told us the 
youth in her program on average test at or below a sixth grade level in 
reading and math, a fact that affects the program's ability to help 
these youth achieve educational and employment outcomes. Program 
directors we interviewed, regardless of their geographic location, 
cited service gaps for disconnected youth in their communities, 
particularly in the areas of mental health treatment, housing, and 
transportation. Local programs we reviewed also reported that funding 
constraints from all sources as well as unpredictable funding levels 
have created significant challenges for them to keep pace with demand 
for services and to plan for the future. Funding for many of the key 
federal programs we reviewed that serve disconnected youth has remained 
the same or declined since 2000. In addition, many of the directors of 
programs receiving Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Youth funding--one of 
the larger federal funding sources that can be used to assist 
disconnected youth--noted that meeting certain youth performance goals 
within contract time frames discouraged them from serving youth who may 
need additional time and assistance to achieve specified outcomes. 
Labor officials acknowledged that the workforce investment boards-- 
entities that contract with and oversee local programs--often issue 1- 
year contracts that may unintentionally discourage programs from 
working with lower-skilled youth to meet performance goals. Labor 
officials noted that in most cases there is no requirement to achieve 
performance goals within 1 year, and Labor's intent is for workforce 
investment boards to develop longer-term contracts to help programs 
serve hard-to-employ youth. Labor has provided limited technical 
assistance and is considering issuing guidance on this issue, but has 
not established a time frame to do so. Labor officials also said that 
anticipated changes in federal performance goals may help to address 
this issue by better capturing improvements made by youth at all skill 
levels. Last, many local programs faced challenges managing multiple 
federal funding sources, such as working across varying eligibility and 
reporting requirements. In recent years, at the federal level, existing 
and new federal initiatives have intensified efforts to coordinate 
federal youth programs and provide assistance to state and local youth- 
serving programs, which may help to address some of the challenges 
faced by local programs. 

This report contains a recommendation to Labor to improve 
implementation of the WIA Youth program by working with workforce 
investment boards to better ensure they have the information and 
guidance needed to develop and implement contracts that allow local 
programs to serve youth who are in need of more assistance than others 
while still achieving performance goals. We provided a draft of this 
report to Labor, HHS, Justice, and Education for review and comment. 
Labor agreed with our recommendation, indicating it will work with 
workforce investment boards to identify constraints, issue guidance in 
the spring of 2008 for the workforce investment system on developing 
contracts with local service providers, and provide technical 
assistance to support the implementation of the guidance. HHS provided 
information about a Web site available to communities that we added to 
the report. Labor, HHS, and Education provided technical comments that 
we incorporated where appropriate. Justice had no comments on the draft 
report. 

Background: 

While most youth successfully transition to adulthood, many youth 
become disconnected from school and work, or social supports,[Footnote 
3] and experience challenges in making this transition. Some of these 
youth are more likely than others to remain low-income, to lose jobs 
during economic downturns, and to engage in criminal activities, 
antisocial behavior, and teenage parenting. No single estimate exists 
on the total number of disconnected youth because of varying 
definitions, distinct time periods from which data are drawn, and the 
use of different data sources. However, researchers' estimates of the 
number of disconnected youth range from 2.3 million to 5.2 
million.[Footnote 4] 

Disconnected youth encompass a broad population that may include high 
school dropouts, homeless and runaway youth, incarcerated youth, or 
youth who have aged out of the foster care system. Youth of different 
races and ethnicities are represented among this youth population. 
However, research studies show that African-American males constitute a 
disproportionate share of the population. For example, many young 
African-American males experience high incarceration rates, and African-
Americans are generally overrepresented in the child welfare and 
juvenile justice systems.[Footnote 5] Many young women also become 
disconnected to assume parenting responsibilities. In addition, the 
risk of disconnection is particularly high among youth with emotional 
disturbances and learning disabilities, many of whom have not mastered 
basic literacy skills. These youth have higher dropout rates and poorer 
employment outcomes than other youth. 

To assist youth transitioning to adulthood, direct services are 
provided at the local level with the support of federal, state, local, 
and private funding sources. A range of local entities, such as 
community-based organizations and charter schools, in urban and rural 
communities nationwide, provide services to reconnect these youth to 
education and employment. 

Role of Federal Agencies in Assisting Local Efforts: 

Multiple federal agencies play a role in providing funding and 
assistance to local programs that serve disconnected youth. The White 
House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth identified 12 federal agencies 
that fund over 300 programs that assist local communities in serving 
disadvantaged youth in some capacity. However, four agencies--the 
Departments of Labor, HHS, Education, and Justice--play a primary role 
and contain some of the largest youth-serving grant programs in terms 
of funding.[Footnote 6] 

Despite having distinct missions, these four agencies share the common 
goal of reconnecting youth to education and the workforce, and each 
works to accomplish this goal by administering multiple programs. (See 
table 1 for a listing of key federal grant programs that serve 
disconnected youth.) 

* Labor's workforce programs provide funding for both workforce 
training and education services for youth up to age 24, including youth 
involved in the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems, school 
dropouts, and homeless youth. 

* HHS's grant programs serve runaway and homeless youth up to age 21 or 
youth who have aged out of foster care or are likely to age out. These 
grants fund local programs that have education and workforce 
components, and also assist youth in connecting to housing and long- 
term support networks. 

* Education's various related grant programs focus on youth who are 
homeless; neglected, delinquent, or at risk; out of school; or 
incarcerated in a state prison within 5 years of release or parole 
eligibility. The programs facilitate youths' enrollment and success in 
school and vocational programs. 

* Justice's grant programs serve those youth 17 and under who are 
involved in or at risk of becoming involved in the juvenile justice 
system. Grant programs administered by Justice aim to help youth make 
the successful transition out of the juvenile justice system and on to 
education and workforce pathways. 

In total, these programs received over $3.7 billion in appropriated 
funds in 2006. Labor's Job Corps program accounted for almost half-- 
$1.6 billion--of these appropriations, and its WIA Youth Activities 
accounted for nearly $1 billion. Some of the programs serve a broad 
subsection of youth, including some who may not be disconnected per our 
definition, such as young adults over 24 and in-school youth. See 
appendix III for more information on key federal grant programs' 
eligibility criteria and purposes. 

Table 1: Key Federal Grant Programs That Serve Disconnected Youth: 

Agency or office: Department of Labor: Office of the Secretary; 
Federal grant: Job Corps; 
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $1,573.3. 

Agency or office: Department of Labor: Employment and Training 
Administration; 
Federal grant: WIA Youth Activities; 
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $940.5. 

Agency or office: Department of Labor: Employment and Training 
Administration; 
Employment and Training Administration; 
Federal grant: YouthBuild; 
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $49.5. 

Agency or office: Department of Labor: Employment and Training 
Administration; 
Federal grant: Youth Offender Grants; 
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $49.1. 

Agency or office: Department of Labor: Employment and Training 
Administration; 
Federal grant: Youth Opportunity (Funding ended in 2003); 
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): Not applicable. 

Agency or office: Department of HHS: Children's Bureau; 
Federal grant: Chafee Foster Care Independence Program; 
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $140. 

Agency or office: Department of HHS: Family and Youth Services Bureau; 
Federal grant: Runaway and Homeless Youth Program; 
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $102.9. 

Agency or office: Department of Education: Office of Vocational and 
Adult Education; 
Federal grant: Adult Education Basic Grants to States[A]; 
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $564. 

Agency or office: Department of Education: Office of Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools; 
Federal grant: Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition 
Training for Incarcerated Youth; 
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $22.8. 

Agency or office: Department of Education: Office of Elementary and 
Secondary Education; 
Federal grant: Education for Homeless Children and Youth--Grants for 
States and Local Activities; 
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $61.9. 

Agency or office: Department of Education: Office of Elementary and 
Secondary Education; 
Federal grant: Title I-D Prevention and Intervention Programs for 
Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or at Risk--Grants 
for States and Localities; 
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $49.8. 

Agency or office: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention; 
Federal grant: Part E Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising 
New Initiatives and Programs; 
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $106. 

Agency or office: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention; 
Federal grant: Title II B--State Formula Grants; 
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $74.3. 

Agency or office: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention; 
Federal grant: Juvenile Accountability Block Grant; 
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $46.4. 

Agency or office: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention; 
Federal grant: Title V Community Prevention Block Grants; 
Appropriated funds, in millions of dollars (2006): $4.6. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

[A] The Adult Education Basic Grants to States serves adults and out- 
of-school youth ages 16 and older. 

[End of table] 

Federal youth-serving agencies distribute funds to locally operated 
programs through varying mechanisms. Some programs first provide funds 
to states, which are then passed to local units of government or 
programs. For example, Justice awards formula grants to states that can 
be used to fund projects for the development of more effective juvenile 
delinquency programs and improved juvenile justice systems. Juvenile 
justice specialists in each state administer the funding through 
subgrants to units of local government or local private agencies in 
accordance with legislative requirements. Similarly, Education, through 
the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, Title II of WIA, awards 
funds to local eligible providers through state education or labor 
agencies. Much in the same way, Labor allocates WIA Title I funds to 
states, which in turn distribute much of this money to their local 
workforce investment boards.[Footnote 7] These boards then award 
competitive contracts to youth providers. Other federal grants, such as 
Labor's YouthBuild program and HHS's Transitional Living 
Program[Footnote 8] are awarded through a competitive process in which 
local organizations submit grant proposals directly to the federal 
agencies. 

Federal agencies also provide technical assistance and guidance to 
local programs. For example, to support programs that receive WIA 
funds, Labor provides online training courses through a contractor, 
including Web-based, interactive seminars and tutorials. Labor also 
provides targeted technical assistance to help local areas most in need 
by assisting them in identifying and correcting issues that are 
negatively affecting performance outcomes. Similarly, a training 
provider and a technical assistance provider assist HHS's Transitional 
Living Program grantees nationally by helping them to develop new 
approaches to serving youth, access new sources of funding, and 
establish linkages with other grantees that have similar issues and 
concerns. These providers also track trends, identify and share best 
practices, and sponsor conferences and workshops. To assist local 
programs in identifying successful program models, Justice maintains a 
database with information on evidence-based prevention programs that 
serve at-risk and court-involved youth across the country. 

All four federal agencies require local programs to report on their 
progress with youth by collecting data on youth outcomes, such as 
attainment of their General Educational Development (GED) credential or 
job placement, and some of these outcomes are tied to financial 
sanctions and incentives. For example, HHS requires Transitional Living 
Program grantees to record each youth's living situation, physical and 
mental health, and grade completed when the youth exits from the 
program, among other data elements. Sometimes data must pass through an 
intermediary agency such as a state education agency or local workforce 
investment board, and these entities may require additional data from 
programs for their own monitoring purposes. The federal programs 
collect this information to monitor the progress toward goals, and to 
ensure that local programs are serving the targeted population and 
spending money appropriately. Federal agencies may also affect local 
programs by setting specific penalties for programs or states that do 
not meet certain goals or benchmarks. These mechanisms are intended to 
encourage a high level of performance and accountability. For example, 
Labor negotiates performance goals with states for WIA Youth 
Activities, and if states do not meet 80 percent of those goals for 
more than 2 years in a row, monetary sanctions may be imposed. However, 
Labor offers states technical assistance after the first year when 
requested by states, and relatively few states have actually been 
financially penalized. States are also eligible to receive performance 
incentives if they exceed certain performance levels. 

Local Programs We Reviewed Differed in Their Funding Sources and 
Program Structure, yet Shared Some Characteristics: 

The 39 local programs we reviewed received funding from a range of 
government and private sources, and differed in their program 
structure, yet shared some specific characteristics.[Footnote 9] The 
programs we reviewed received funding from federal, state, local, and 
private sources, and all but 6 programs received some federal funding. 
Some federal funding sources required programs to follow a specific 
model or offer a standard set of services, while others allowed 
programs to use funding more flexibly. The programs also varied in 
their program structure. For example, some were community-based 
organizations that provided services on a daily basis, some were 
charter schools, and some offered residential living. Within these 
different program structures, some programs also targeted their efforts 
to specific youth subpopulations, such as court-involved youth. Yet 
despite these differences, programs shared some characteristics. For 
example, all of the programs we reviewed were created to meet the needs 
of local youth such as addressing youth homelessness and high school 
dropout rates. Most of the programs had also operated for several 
years, and provided ancillary services in addition to employment and 
educational assistance to address the multiple needs of their youth 
participants. 

Programs Received Funding from Federal, State, Local, and Private 
Sources: 

The 39 programs we reviewed received funding from a variety of sources, 
including federal, state, local, and private sources. Eleven of these 
programs reported that their funding primarily comes from federal 
sources, and nearly half received a combination of federal, state, 
local, and private funding. All but 6 of the programs in our review 
received some federal funding. Figure 1 summarizes the sources of 
funding for the local programs we reviewed. 

Figure 1: Primary Sources of Funding for the 39 Programs We Reviewed: 

This figure is a horizontal bar graph showing primary sources of 
funding for the 39 programs we reviewed. The X axis represents number 
of local programs, while the Y axis represents source of funding. 

Mainly or all federal: 11; 
Mainly or all state: 4; 
Mainly or all local: 3; 
Mainly or all private: 3; 
Combination of federal state, local and private: 18. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of self-reported information provided by 39 
program directors. 

[End of figure] 

In some cases, federal funding sources may require programs to follow a 
specific model or offer a standard set of services, and in other cases 
federal funding can be used more flexibly. For example, all of Labor's 
Job Corps centers feature campus-like settings with youth housed in 
dormitories and a similar model for guidance and support at all sites 
to help youth achieve long-term employment. Similarly, HHS's 
Transitional Living Program grantees are required to offer a specific 
set of services, either directly or by referral, to youth in their 
programs, including instruction in budgeting, housekeeping, menu 
planning, food preparation, and parenting. By contrast, Education's 
Adult Education Grants, which serve both adults and out-of-school youth 
ages 16 and older, support workplace literacy services, GED 
instruction, family literacy services, or English-language learning 
programs and can be delivered by public schools, community colleges, 
libraries, or other providers. 

The 39 Programs We Reviewed Were Structured Differently to Provide 
Employment and Educational Services to Youth: 

The 39 programs we reviewed structured their services to youth in 
different ways. For example, some programs were community organizations 
that provided specific training for youth at their organization during 
the day. Some were established as charter schools, and some were 
residential programs, most often providing transitional housing to 
homeless and/or runaway youth. Many of the programs were a combination 
of these different approaches. For example, one charter school also 
provided residential facilities for youth. Another program with a 
primary focus on providing employment opportunities to youth also had a 
charter school on the premises. Depending in part on the structure of 
the program, the programs varied in size, length of involvement for 
youth, and the extent of follow-up they conducted with exiting 
participants. 

Several of the programs we reviewed were community organizations that 
worked to improve the employment outcomes of youth by helping them to 
gain the skills needed to be successful in the workplace. They 
generally provided a range of employment training opportunities to 
youth during the day, such as teaching youth interviewing techniques, 
and how to develop a rï¿½sumï¿½ and work in a team environment. Some 
programs provided vocational training to youth participants in certain 
industries, such as construction or health care, to teach work skills. 
To the extent possible, some programs also provided youth with on-the- 
job training by placing them in internships and employment 
opportunities. In addition to employment training and placement, 
several of the programs also assisted youth in meeting their 
educational goals by providing them with opportunities to earn a GED 
credential or high school diploma either on-site or in collaboration 
with other organizations in the community. Figure 2 describes a 
community organization we visited in Boston that works to improve 
employment outcomes for youth. 

Figure 2: Illustration of a Community Organization in Boston, 
Massachusetts: 

This figure is an textual description of a community organization in 
Boston, Massachusetts. 

Youth Opportunity Boston (Boston, Massachusetts): 

Established in 1997, Youth Opportunity (YO) Boston is a community-based 
organization that helps court-involved youth between the ages of 14 and 
24. With multiple challenges and many barriers to helping youth achieve 
immediate success, YO Bostonï¿½s service population is among the most 
difficult to serve. Many of the youth are high school dropouts, have 
spent time in detention facilities, and lack the basic skills needed 
for entry-level employment, and more than 80 percent are involved with 
gangs. The program was initially funded by Laborï¿½s Youth Opportunity 
demonstration grant. However, this grant ended in 2005. Currently, the 
program is funded by state and local funding sources. At the time of 
our review, the program served about 600 court-involved youth on an 
annual basis and employed 15 permanent staff and 17 temporary staff. 

Staff meet with youth while they are still in detention facilities to 
develop a relationship and make a plan for their re-entry back into the 
community. Youth admitted in the program are provided with a range of 
services, including employment training, case management, and 
educational preparation. Youth also participate in YO Bostonï¿½s 
Transitional Employment Services programï¿½a multitiered, subsidized 
employment programï¿½that places youth ingroup ï¿½team-based workï¿½ with 
various community partners. Youth are then placed in internships with 
nonprofits and small companies that may hire the youth and pay their 
wages. Some of the group projects that youth have participated in 
include working at a nonprofit that provides clothing and goods to 
children in foster care, painting a stadium, landscaping public land, 
and producing a newspaper for the program. During our visit to the 
program, we observed a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) course 
taught to youth by the cityï¿½s emergency medical services and police 
departments. These youth were being trained in this because they are 
often the first individuals at a violent crime scene. This also gives 
youth the opportunity to positively contribute in the community. Most 
youth stay in the program for a minimum of 18 to 24 months. Though 
challenging because of the transient population served,the program does 
follow up quarterly with youth for up to 2 years after they exit the 
program through phone calls and home visits.

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO based on information from Youth Opportunity Boston. 

[End of figure] 

Several of the programs were established as charter schools or 
nontraditional schools, often referred to as "alternative education 
schools," to assist youth who have dropped out of traditional public 
schools. These programs typically allowed youth to learn in a small 
classroom-based setting. Some of these programs were selective and 
required youth to test at certain grade levels or have a certain amount 
of credits earned before they can be admitted into the program, and 
generally had a focus on academic and vocational education. Youth 
typically spent part of their time attending academic classes, such as 
math or reading classes, to achieve basic academic skills so they can 
pass the GED exam or earn a high school diploma. In addition to these 
academic classes, youth typically attended vocational classes to learn 
work skills and specific trades. To facilitate learning outside of the 
classroom, some of these schools provided youth with internships or 
employment opportunities in the community, or allowed youth to 
participate in service projects. Figure 3 describes a charter school we 
visited in Washington, D.C. 

Figure 3: Illustration of a Charter School in Washington, D.C. 

This figure is a textual description of a charter school in Washington, 
D.C. 

See Forever Foundationï¿½s Maya Angelou Public Charter School(Washington, 
D.C.) 

The See Forever Foundation was founded in 1997, and a year later it 
established the Maya Angelou Public Charter School for youth between 
the ages of 14 and 17 who have not succeeded in traditional schools. In 
particular, Maya Angelou Public Charter School helps to develop the 
academic, social, and employment skills youth need to build rewarding 
lives and promote positive change in their communities. The school, 
funded by local government and private funding sources, has four 
campusesï¿½two for high school students, one for middle school students, 
and one at the Oak Hill Academy, a long-term secure facility for . For 
the 2007-2008 school year, Maya Angelou Public Charter School serves 
approximately 475 students at its four campuses and employs 125 staff 
to work with these youth. At least half of these youth may be low-
income, involved in the juvenile justice or foster care systems, in 
need of special education services, or may have failed school at one 
point in time. 

The formal school day begins at 9:00 a.m. and runs until 4:30 p.m. The 
program offers after-school academic enrichment activities, vocational 
programs, and recreational programs until 7:15 p.m. 4 days a week. Over 
200 tutors in the community come to the school campuses 3 days a week 
to provide one-on-one tutoring to students. Maya Angelou Public charter 
School high school campuses release students early on Wednesdays to 
allow them to participate in paid internships. The school provides 
students with a minimum of 1 hour of group counseling each week to help 
them address barriers to their academic success.Gender-segregated, 
group-based residences are available during the school week to 
approximately 23 students who have experienced obstacles in their 
school attendance,including chronic truancy and difficult situations at 
home. The length of enrollment varies, but as of this year, youth can 
be admitted to the school as young as 6th grade, and attend classes on 
the various campuses for up to 7 years. Last year, 80 percent of 9th to 
12th graders at the high school operated at the 6th grade level or 
below. While students work at their , the school aims to accelerate 
performance with the hope of moving students through as many as two 
grade levels each year. Advancement is based on academic proficiency 
and the speed at which the students are able to achieve their 
objectives.

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO based on information from Maya Angelou Public Charter 
School. 

[End of figure] 

Many of the programs we reviewed provided residential living 
accommodations and services to youth to help them develop the skills 
necessary to transition to independence. Many of these programs were 
transitional living programs that served runaway and/or homeless youth. 
Living accommodations for youth in transitional living programs 
typically vary and can include group homes, maternity group homes, or 
apartments that are supervised by staff. Several of these programs were 
small, with fewer than 20 youth residents. Some programs were 
structured and established ground rules that participants must follow. 
To address the multiple needs of these youth, these programs generally 
offered a range of services, including educational opportunities, such 
as GED preparation, post secondary training, or vocational education; 
and basic life skills building, such as budgeting and housekeeping. The 
length of time youth participants stayed in a program varied; some 
youth stayed on average 4 months, while others stayed a year and a half 
or longer, depending on their needs and certain eligibility 
criteria.[Footnote 10] Figure 4 describes a transitional living program 
we visited in Portland, Oregon. In addition, one residential program we 
reviewed was targeted to court-involved youth. Labor's Job Corps 
program also provided residential facilities to youth in that program. 

Figure 4: Illustration of a Transitional Living Program in Portland, 
Oregon: 

The figure is a textual description of a transitional living program in 
Portland, Oregon. 

Janus Youth Programs Willamette Bridge House (Portland, Oregon)Janus 
Youth Programs created the Willamette Bridge House, a transitional 
living program, in1987 to provide stable housing for homeless youth 
between the ages 16 and 20 who were not in foster care or some other 
system. The program is funded through grants provided by HHS and the 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, in addition to other 
federal,state, local, and private funding sources. The program works 
with 7 youth at any given time,and employs 6 full-time staff working 
with these youth. In addition to the 7 youth residing in the Willamette 
Bridge House, the program also works with 15 to 20 youth at any given 
time who are transitioning into their own apartments and need the 
programï¿½s help with basic fees,such as security and utility deposits. 
The youth served by the program include court and/or gang-involved 
youth, high school dropouts, pregnant or parenting youth, and other 
youth subpopulations. 

To determine which youth will be accepted into the program, staff 
assess each young personï¿½s motivation to get off the streets. Once in 
the program, youth are required to fulfill 42 hours of work each week, 
which can include basic education, GED preparation, employment, or any 
other activities agreed to with their case manager. The program 
provides a range of services:individualized case management, parenting 
classes, budgeting assistance, job and life skills training, basic food 
shopping and preparation, and a savings plan. Youth can stay in the 
program up to 18 months. While in the program, youth and staff work 
together to secure stable, permanent housing options upon exit from the 
program. The program conducts formal follow-up with participants 6 and 
12 months after they exit.

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Within these different program structures, some of the programs we 
reviewed targeted their efforts to specific youth subpopulations. For 
example, a few programs provided support to youth aging out of the 
foster care system, who typically lack social supports, to help them 
make a successful transition to adulthood and self-sufficiency. These 
programs may offer a range of support services, such as food and 
housing assistance, educational opportunities, and advocacy. Other 
programs worked to improve the outcomes of court-involved youth. Some 
of these programs varied in structure and approach to working with 
youth. For example, one program operating a juvenile residential 
facility offered youth vocational education and life skills training, 
as well as a full range of academic courses and diploma options. Other 
programs provided court-involved youth with on-the-job training through 
their vocational curricula and service projects. 

Despite Different Approaches to Serving Youth, Local Programs Shared 
Some Specific Characteristics: 

Despite these differences, the 39 local programs we reviewed shared 
some characteristics. All of the programs we reviewed were created to 
meet the needs of local youth, such as addressing youth homelessness 
and high school dropout rates. For example, one program was started by 
an individual seeking to assist high school dropouts in her community 
by allowing youth to complete their GED while acquiring construction 
skills. Another program providing employment training and placement to 
youth was started by a local police officer who wanted to help young 
men returning to the community from jail obtain support services and 
the skills needed to achieve self-sufficiency. Most of these programs 
were well established, with many providing services to youth for at 
least 10 years. Slightly less than half of the programs had 20 years or 
more of experience in assisting youth, and relatively few were newly 
established with less than 5 years of experience. In addition, most 
programs provided services, such as counseling or housing assistance, 
to their youth participants directly or through referrals to community 
service providers. 

Directors of the 39 Local Programs Cited Similar Key Elements in 
Reconnecting Youth to Educational and Employment Goals: 

While varying types of programs serve disconnected youth, directors of 
the 39 local programs we reviewed identified similar key elements of 
their programs that assist them in reconnecting youth to educational 
and employment goals. These include employing effective staff and 
leadership to build strong relationships with youth and the community, 
addressing youth needs in a holistic manner, incorporating a variety of 
specific program design components, and empowering youth to achieve 
their goals. Our findings on key elements in reconnecting youth are 
generally in line with those cited in literature on youth and by other 
experts on youth issues whom we interviewed. These elements and key 
components are shown in figure 5 and are discussed in more detail in 
the following sections. 

Figure 5: Key Elements of Local Programs Cited by Program Directors in 
Reconnecting Youth to Education and Employment: 

This figure is a chart with illustration showing key elements of local 
programs cited by 39 program directors in reconnecting youth to 
education and employment. 

Staff and leadership: 
* Building strong relationships with youth; 
* Garner community support. 

Holistic comprehensive services: 
* Counseling; 
* Health services; 
* Child care; 
* Housing and food assistance. 

Program design components: 
* Experiential learning; 
* Self-paced curricula; 
* Incentives. 

Youth empowerment: 
* High expectations; 
* Youth involvement; 
* Clear code of conduct. 

Goal: Successful transition by youth to adulthood and self-sufficiency 
through education and employment. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by 39 local program 
directors: Images (Art Explosion). 

[End of figure]  

Staff and Leadership Are Key in Building Relationships with Youth and 
Community Partners: 

Nearly all of the 39 directors cited the importance of staff in 
building strong relationships with youth to help them achieve their 
goals. For some youth, their interactions with staff may be among the 
first positive experiences they had with adults. Many youth we spoke 
with across programs agreed that staff were a primary reason they 
continued in the program. For example, one youth we spoke with told us 
she continued to participate in her program because the staff helped 
her establish goals and provided a supportive environment. In many 
cases, the relationships between staff and youth participants continue 
well after these youth complete the program, providing an ongoing 
source of support to the participants. Figure 6 depicts photos of staff 
working with youth participants at two programs we visited. Directors 
reported that they have developed a range of strategies to retain 
staff, which included providing competitive pay and benefits. One 
director provides training to reduce burnout and help her staff feel 
more confident and competent. Others said that they maintain a low 
caseload for case managers, allow staff to have input in program 
development, and conduct recognition ceremonies to award staff for 
their accomplishments. 

Figure 6: Staff Working with Youth Participants at Various Work Sites: 

This figure is a combination of two photographs showing staff working 
with youth participants at various work sites. One is a Project 
CRAFT/Nashville, Tennessee) and the other is of Civicorps Schools 
(Oakland, California). 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Program leadership also played a key role in maintaining successful 
programs and garnering community support that leads to funding and 
other resources. The vision of certain program directors helped 
programs to continually innovate to meet the needs of youth in their 
communities. For some programs, the same leadership had been in place 
since their inception, a fact that has contributed toward their 
continued stability. Directors had built strong relationships with a 
range of community stakeholders, including mayors, city departments, 
local businesses, employers, and clergy. For example, two youth-serving 
programs reported that they received funding from their mayor and city 
after the federal Youth Opportunity grants were eliminated, a fact that 
enabled them to continue to provide services to youth. Additionally, 
programs established relationships with service providers in the 
community to gain access to a range of educational or employment 
opportunities for youth. For example, one program partnered with a 
local community college program to provide skills training and 
certification for entry-level jobs. Other programs partnered with 
employers to provide their youth participants with employment 
placements, internships, and job shadowing opportunities. One director 
working with court-involved youth noted that these relationships were 
critical to finding employment for their youth participants with 
criminal records. Program reputation, longevity of the program and its 
staff, and ability of the management to plan for the future and attract 
relevant stakeholders were cited as factors helping programs to 
coordinate efforts within their communities. 

Directors Emphasized the Importance of Addressing Youth Needs in a 
Holistic Manner: 

To address the multiple needs of participants, many program directors 
told us that, to the extent possible, their programs took a holistic 
approach to providing comprehensive support services to youth either on-
site or in collaboration with other service providers in the community. 
(Fig. 7 illustrates the range of services one local Job Corps center 
offers youth participants in addition to educational and employment 
assistance.) In one program, on-site case managers provided individual 
counseling to youth and referred these youth to providers in the 
community for additional services, such as substance abuse and mental 
health services, if needed. Another director of a program working with 
runaway and homeless youth said the program provides a continuum of 
services, including on-site health services, such as psychological 
assessments and human immunodeficiency virus testing. Other medical 
services were provided through a partnership with the local public 
health department. 

Figure 7: Example of a Local Job Corps Center's Holistic Approach to 
Providing Comprehensive Support Services: 

This figure is a chart with illustrations showing example of local job 
corps center's holistic approach to providing comprehensive support 
services. 

Hawaii Job Corps: 
* Work based learning and career technical training; 
* Academic programs and support; 
* Child care; 
* Residential living; 
* Health services; 
* Counseling services and career preparation. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of the Hawaii Job Corps Centerï¿½s support services; 
Images (Art Explosion). 

[End of figure] 

Specific Program Design Components Help Programs to Engage and Retain 
Young People: 

Program directors incorporated a variety of specific design components 
to help engage and retain youth, such as experiential learning 
opportunities, engagement in civic activities, self-paced curricula and 
flexible schedules, and financial and nonfinancial incentives. Many 
program directors told us that they incorporated experiential learning 
opportunities, which provide youth with hands-on learning opportunities 
and on-site training, to emphasize concepts used in the classroom or to 
teach work skills. For example, one director of a program that teaches 
various trades to court-involved youth allows young people to apply 
their academic skills to real world situations. Youth receiving 
training in construction, for example, can apply math concepts they 
learn in the classroom to construction projects in the community. One 
young person participating in this program said that he appreciated 
this applied setting and is more motivated to learn math skills. 
Through such on-the-job training, youth also learn how to take 
directions from supervisors and work as part of a team, skills that are 
necessary in the work environment. Figure 8 depicts a photo of a local 
program's workshop that trains out-of-school youth in construction. 

Figure 8: Workshop at a Local Program That Trains Out-of-School Youth 
in Construction: 

This figure is a photograph of a workshop at a local program that 
trains out-of-school youth in construction. The workshop pictured is 
the Youth Employment Partnership, Inc. in Oakland, California. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Directors reported that civic engagement provides youth with an 
opportunity to give back to the community and learn how to get involved 
with government and community activities. One director of a program 
serving court-involved youth said that his curriculum incorporated a 
restorative justice framework whereby youth participate in community 
activities to make up for their negative behavior. Some of these 
community service activities included building a deck for a local youth-
serving organization or constructing homes for low-income families. 
Other programs arranged local field trips to expose youth to government 
and community activities. For example, one educational and occupational 
training program organized field trips to city hall, cultural events, 
and museums to teach youth about various community activities. A young 
person who attended such an event at the local city hall said the 
experience taught him about public hearings and how to be an advocate 
for issues that affect him. 

To accommodate the various needs of their youth participants, many 
programs employed an individualized or self-paced curriculum and a 
flexible class schedule. For example, one educational and occupational 
training program reported that it tailored students' academic course of 
study to their skill level through more individualized attention. One 
young person, who dropped out of school because the slow pace had left 
him unchallenged, told us that he became re-engaged in school work 
through the program's self-paced curriculum. To further accommodate the 
needs of their youth participants, such as parenting or employment, 
programs provided flexibility to their youth in developing class 
schedules. 

Over half of the 39 programs used incentives to retain youth or 
encourage positive behavior. These incentives may include industry- 
related certifications upon graduation, transportation vouchers, rent 
subsidies, and educational scholarships to attend college. In 
particular, a few housing or foster care programs provide youth with 
housing subsidies and help them to set up personal savings accounts to 
save for future expenses, such as buying a car or placing a deposit on 
an apartment. A few programs had coordinated with the federal 
AmeriCorps program to provide educational scholarships to reward youth 
for their service in the program.[Footnote 11] Other programs have 
established a behavioral management system that incorporates incentives 
to reward youth for positive behavior. For example, one program allowed 
youth to earn points for maintaining a clean room, arriving on time to 
school, and not being involved in negative incidents. These points can 
then be traded in for items valuable to the youth participants, such as 
compact discs. 

Programs Empower Youth by Setting Expectations and Strengthening Their 
Leadership Skills: 

Youth Development Approach: 

According to HHSï¿½s National Clearinghouse on Families and Youth, the 
youth development approach, developed over 30 years ago by researchers 
and practitioners, emphasizes providing services and opportunities to 
support young people to succeed and contribute as adults by 
incorporating four components: 

* a sense of competence; 

* a sense of usefulness; 

* a sense of belonging, and: 

* a sense of power. 

A number of federal agencies, foundations, and national organizations 
utilize this framework in their initiatives. For example, HHSï¿½s Family 
and Youth Services Bureau, one of the federal agencies in our review, 
has funded demonstration projects at the state level to encourage 
collaborative approaches to youth development. For more information, 
see National Clearinghouse on Families and YouthWeb site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.ncfy.com].

Program directors reported that they empower youth by setting high 
expectations, establishing a clear code of conduct, and strengthening 
their leadership skills. Many directors told us that they use an 
approach that focuses on youths' capacities, strengths, and 
developmental needs rather than solely on their problems and risks-- 
often referred to as the "youth development approach" by researchers 
and practitioners. According to one director, youth have been 
accustomed to interacting with people and systems that focus on their 
deficits rather than their talents and strengths, leading them to lack 
confidence in their abilities. By setting high expectations, staff 
demonstrate confidence in youth, and in turn some youth will rise to 
those expectations. Many programs told us that they balance these high 
expectations with a clear code of conduct that provides youth with 
guidelines about the consequences of their behaviors. 

To strengthen youths' leadership skills and improve program services, 
many program directors reported involving youth in a variety of program 
operation activities. Many programs involved youth in the process to 
hire new staff or their outreach and recruitment efforts for new 
participants. One program encouraged youth to attend advisory board 
meetings once a quarter to talk about what is working and additional 
needs. Other programs have established youth councils to help set goals 
for the program and solicit input from other youth participants. In 
addition, several directors noted that they hired former youth 
participants as staff. One director from a program that serves foster 
care youth said that these youth workers are key because they can 
relate to other youths' circumstances and can teach them conflict 
resolution and coping skills. 

Directors We Interviewed Cited Service Gaps, Funding Constraints, and 
Federal Grant Management Challenges That Hindered Their Efforts; 
Federal Coordination Efforts Under Way May Help Address Some of These 
Issues: 

Program directors reported challenges addressing some of the issues 
faced by youth in their programs as well as gaps in certain services, 
such as housing and employment opportunities for youth. Most directors 
reported that funding constraints from federal and other sources 
challenge program stability and efforts to serve more youth. Funding 
for many of the key federal programs we reviewed that serve 
disconnected youth has remained the same or declined since 2000. In 
addition, many of the 15 directors with federal WIA Youth funding noted 
that the need to meet certain WIA Youth performance goals within short- 
term time frames discouraged them from serving youth that may need more 
time and assistance to achieve specified outcomes. Labor officials 
acknowledged that states and workforce investment boards sometimes 
issue 1-year contracts with local programs that unintentionally 
discourage the programs from working with lower-skilled youth and that 
the boards may need more assistance from Labor to address this issue. 
Regarding local programs receiving funding from more than one federal 
source, several directors cited varying grant requirements that pose a 
challenge for local programs to reconcile. In recent years at the 
federal level, existing and new federal initiatives have intensified 
efforts to coordinate federal youth programs and provide assistance to 
state and local youth-serving efforts, which may help to address some 
challenges faced by local programs. 

Programs Constrained by Circumstances and Needs of Some Youth and Gaps 
in Services at the Community Level: 

Most directors cited the complex nature of the youth populations they 
serve and issues facing youth at the community level as key challenges 
to successfully reconnecting youth to education and 
employment.[Footnote 12] These challenges are further complicated by a 
gap in needed services at the local level.[Footnote 13] Figure 9 
identifies the top gaps in services most frequently cited by local 
program directors. 

Figure 9: Gaps in Services for Disconnected Youth Reported by 39 
Program Directors: 

This figure is a horizontal bar graph showing gaps in services for 
disconnected youth reported by 39 program directors. The X axis 
represents the number of local program directors reporting gap in 
services, and the Y axis represents service gaps. 

Housing: 24; 
Mental health services: 22; 
Transportation: 17; 
Alternative education of GED training: 13; 
Job training: 10; 
Substance abuse treatment: 9; 
Social supports: 9; 
Child care: 7. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis based on interviews with 39 local program 
directors. 

Note: Directors identified the top three services they believed were 
insufficient or lacking in their communities. These data only include 
services that were mentioned by more than three directors. 

[End of figure] 

A large number of the program directors reported that their youth have 
mental health issues, and several said these issues may be undiagnosed 
or untreated before entering the program, and that their communities 
lack adequate mental health services. Directors cited trauma, 
depression, and attachment disorders as examples of the mental health 
issues faced by some of the youth. Several directors said that these 
mental health issues were undiagnosed prior to the youths' involvement 
with their programs. As one director stated, the complex family and 
living situations many of these youth come from and the long-term 
effects of abuse and neglect experienced by some of these youth need to 
be addressed in order for youth to have success in reaching employment 
or educational goals. However, more than half of the program directors 
cited a lack of mental health treatment as a major gap in their 
communities. Most often, directors attributed this gap in mental health 
services to inadequate funds. Some directors also attributed the gap to 
a misperception of the need for mental health treatment. For example, 
one director believed that the mental health services these youth need 
to transition to self-sufficiency have not been adequately understood 
or addressed by policymakers. At the same time, a few of the program 
directors also noted that youth themselves are unaware that they need 
intensive counseling and resist pursuing mental health treatment due to 
the associated stigma. 

Some programs also reported that a number of their youth have learning 
disabilities, and that these may have been undiagnosed by the school 
system. For example, one alternative education program stated that in 
2002, nearly 45 percent of its students were diagnosed with learning or 
emotional disabilities. Of these students, only half had been diagnosed 
before coming to their program. Many programs reported that the low 
educational attainment of the youth slow their efforts to achieve 
educational and employment outcomes. According to one director, high 
school-aged youth are frustrated when they test at a seventh grade 
level. Another director reported that, on average, her youth test at a 
fifth to sixth grade level in reading and a fourth to fifth grade level 
in math. She noted that her program's staff must work with youth who 
are at a tremendous skills deficit to achieve outcomes. 

Violence and drugs at the community level create additional challenges 
to youth efforts to successfully complete their programs. A large 
number of programs we reviewed reported that their communities 
struggled with gangs, violence, or drugs, which may affect youths' 
success. Due to gangs and violence, one director reported that young 
people in the program face peer pressure that may detract from their 
efforts to remain in the program. Additionally, youth may not feel safe 
traveling to the program, or may have trouble focusing when violence 
affects their family or friends. One program that works predominantly 
with youth involved in gangs reported that in a 2 ï¿½-year time frame, 26 
of their youth participants were murdered. This program and other 
programs have developed close relationships with law enforcement 
officials to keep abreast of gang activity to ensure the youths' safety 
and generally to serve youth in such communities better. A number of 
directors also reported high levels of drug activity in their 
communities, and many reported substance abuse issues among the youth 
they serve. However, program directors also cited gaps in substance 
abuse services. One program director said that 80 percent of youth in 
his program are in need of substance abuse services, and that these 
services were less available for his participants than in previous 
years. 

A majority of the 39 directors cited a lack of affordable housing as a 
top challenge for youth who are trying to become self-sufficient. Many 

directors discussed a lack of affordable long-term housing, and several 
referred to a lack of temporary housing or shelters for youth. Some 
directors attributed the high cost of housing to revitalization efforts 
in certain areas, and some believed that policymakers lack the 
political will to focus on affordable housing needs. Directors reported 
that wages for this population are low, which creates challenges for 
their youth participants to afford housing. In one community, the 
program director reported a 3-year waiting list for low-income housing. 
Certain restrictions that affect specific subpopulations of 
disconnected youth further limit housing options. For example, 
landlords are reluctant to lease apartments to youth who are 
unemployed, have been involved in the criminal justice system, or do 
not have a parent to cosign a lease. In addition, some programs also 
expressed concern that there are not enough shelters available for 
homeless youth. 

The affordable housing challenge is further complicated by employment 
challenges. Several directors cited a lack of jobs that pay a 
sufficient wage and a reluctance by employers to hire certain 
subpopulations of youth as major challenges facing youth in their 
community. According to one transitional living program, the lack of 
low-skilled jobs that pay enough to meet living expenses, coupled with 
rising housing costs, makes it nearly impossible for a young person to 
transition to a stable living situation upon leaving the program. In 
addition, a number of programs working with court-involved youth 
discussed the challenge these youth face obtaining employment because 
they have a criminal record. One program director working with ex- 
offender youth said these youth are aware of the limited employment 
opportunities they face and some of them lose hope in their ability to 
secure a job. He further noted that it is hard to keep them motivated 
and feeling positive given these constraints, even with stipends for 
academic and employment training.[Footnote 14] 

Job opportunities for youth may also be limited by transportation 
challenges. Many program directors in both rural communities and urban 
centers cited challenges with the accessibility or affordability of 
transportation that affect youth access to opportunities, especially 
employment. Directors cited the high cost of public transportation as a 
barrier for the youth in their programs. One director of a program in 
an urban community that places youth in employment said some jobs 
require youth to go on multiple interviews and the youth do not have 
the money to pay for transportation to and from these interviews. The 
program tries to help youth with the transportation barrier, but the 
amount of funding it can allocate toward transportation is determined 
by its funders. Another program that trains youth for jobs in the 
construction field noted that a lot of the construction jobs are in 
suburban areas, which are not well serviced by public transportation. 
We were told of young people taking multiple buses and many hours to 
travel to a workplace, impeding their ability to sustain employment. 

Funding Constraints from Government and Other Sources Challenge Program 
Stability and Efforts to Serve More Youth: 

Local programs told us that funding constraints from all sources have 
created significant challenges in working with their disconnected youth 
populations. Difficulty with funding was rated as the number one 
overall challenge faced by local programs, and some program directors 
noted that their funding was either declining or not keeping pace with 
inflation or with demand for their services. Funding for 10 of the 15 
key federal programs we reviewed has remained the same or declined 
since 2000. WIA Youth funds have been reduced from a high of $1.13 
billion in fiscal year 2001 to $940 million in fiscal year 2007. This 
represents a decline of about 27 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars. 
While overall Transitional Living Program funding increased in fiscal 
year 2002 to support a greater number of programs, the amount available 
each year to individual local programs --capped at $200,000--has not 
changed since 1992. One program director explained that considering 
increases in the costs of operation, this amount funds only part of one 
staff rather than three as in previous years. Despite these reductions, 
many of the programs we spoke with emphasized that the demand for their 
services has continued. For example, more than half of the programs 
reported having a waiting list of youth in need of their services 
ranging from 10 to 1,000 youth, and high school dropout rates in many 
communities remain high. The Annie E. Casey Foundation found that 
between 2000 and 2005, an additional 626,000 youth between the ages of 
18 and 24 became disconnected from school and work, based on U.S. 
Census Bureau statistics. 

Program directors also stressed that the unpredictability of federal 
grant money has made it difficult to run their programs. In particular, 
most of the program directors who received Transitional Living Program 
funds told us that one of their greatest concerns for this grant source 
was its unpredictability and a perception that HHS does not take into 
consideration enough the experience of current grantees. HHS officials 
said that the agency used to award extra points to current grantees of 
the program, a practice it stopped a few years ago to allow new 
organizations to have greater opportunity. They also acknowledged that 
this is a highly competitive grant and that there are likely many 
deserving programs they are unable to support, given the budget. Other 
programs noted that the short-term nature of some grants made it 
difficult to predict how long they could sustain some of their 
programming and plan for the long term. Program directors we 
interviewed stressed the importance of predictable and long-term 
funding commitments for working with disconnected youth who in 
particular require sustained services and support during precarious 
transitional years. While most of the programs we reviewed received 
some federal dollars, those that relied more heavily on private, state, 
or local funding expressed similar concerns with the limited amount, as 
well as the consistency, of funds available for the populations of 
youth with which they work. 

In response to these funding constraints, program directors reported 
that they had modified or limited their services. One program 
eliminated its GED instruction in response to decreases in WIA Youth 
funds, and another reduced youth served from 1,500 participants in 2000 
to a current capacity of 300 because of similar reductions. Some 
program directors told us that the amount of funding they received 
limited their ability to follow up with youth after they complete the 
program or to conduct program evaluations to improve services. Program 
directors told us that funding levels also affected their ability to 
attract and retain staff. In fact, one Transitional Living Program 
director told us that upon leaving the program, some of the youth the 
program serves found jobs that paid higher wages than those of the 
program staff, a fact that affected the program's ability to retain 
staff. 

Performance Contracts Associated with Some Federal Funding May Have 
Unintended Consequences: 

Many of the 15 local program directors who received WIA Youth funding 
reported that meeting the performance goals for which they were held 
accountable within short-term contracts discouraged them from working 
with low-skilled youth who may need increased time and assistance to 
reach specified outcomes, such as employment or educational 
gains.[Footnote 15] Several local program directors said their WIA 
contracts are for 1 year, and that the need to achieve outcome measures 
often based on only 12 months of service provided a disincentive to 
serve those youth with the greatest challenges.[Footnote 16] Program 
directors explained that youth entering their programs may have 
multiple barriers, such as criminal backgrounds, limited reading 
abilities, and lack of social support, and require a longer investment 
in order to achieve positive outcomes than other youth. In order to 
meet current federal performance goals, such as employment outcome 
goals, within a 1-year period, some directors of the WIA-funded 
programs reported that they only accept youth who test at least at a 
certain grade level. One director explained that many employers will 
not consider hiring young people who cannot read at least at a specific 
grade level. In some areas, this can mean leaving behind a significant 
number of youth who are out of school. One program director in 
Baltimore told us that because of its policy to accept youth that test 
at least at a seventh grade level, the program has to turn away 80 
percent of youth who seek its services even though it has the capacity 
to serve some of these youth. 

Labor officials said they were aware that workforce investment boards, 
which award contracts to local programs, have implemented local program 
contracts in a way that may unintentionally discourage programs from 
working with lower-skilled youth and have taken some initial steps to 
address this issue. The officials acknowledged that 12 months is often 
an inadequate time frame within which to ensure that youth will fulfill 
education-and employment-related outcomes. Labor officials explained 
that for all but one of the measures there is no requirement to achieve 
performance goals within 1 year and workforce investment boards often 
develop 1-year contracts despite Labor's intent for them to develop 
longer-term contracts. Labor has taken some steps to address this 
problem. For example, it is currently conducting some training for 
workforce investment boards to explain the importance of a longer-term 
investment in youth in order to reach outcomes. It has also, through a 
national contractor, provided technical assistance on this issue to 
some state and local workforce investment boards and youth programs. 
However, it has not provided technical assistance more broadly on this 
issue. Labor officials also told us they were considering issuing 
guidance at some point in the future to help boards understand ways to 
establish contracts to better ensure programs have incentives to work 
with hard-to-employ youth, a population group Labor acknowledges is 
important to serve. Labor officials said they have not yet established 
a time frame for developing and issuing guidance on this. 

Labor officials noted another development that may provide local youth- 
serving programs more flexibility to serve youth at all skill levels. 
As part of an Office of Management and Budget requirement for programs 
across multiple agencies to report on uniform evaluation metrics, Labor 
has adopted and implemented the three common performance measures for 
youth employment and training programs developed by the Office of 
Management and Budget. It asserts that these measures may better 
capture improvements made by youth at all skill levels, instead of the 
seven measures currently in statute, reducing the incentive for some 
programs to select only higher-skilled youth. The three new performance 
measures, referred to as the common measures, apply to youth of all 
ages, and focus on literacy or numeracy gains as well as placement in 
employment and education as outcomes, which may give more flexibility 
to programs to work with youth at different levels. By contrast, the 
current measures for older youth (aged 19 to 21) emphasize employment 
outcomes, such as employment retention after 6 months. (See table 2.) 
Labor uses data on performance measures that states collect from 
service providers to track states' progress in meeting performance 
goals. Labor officials told us that states must collect data for both 
sets of measures until the new measures are established through law, 
although some states have already started to work with the new 
measures.[Footnote 17] For program year 2007, Labor reported that 22 
states had waivers in place that allowed them to collect data for only 
the three new common measures; 10 of these states were granted waivers 
recently in program year 2006 and two of them in program year 2005. 
While the new measures may give states more flexibility in how they 
measure youths' progress, it may be too early to assess whether these 
new measures have been incorporated into contracts with local programs 
in ways that result in reduced incentives for programs to select higher-
performing youth. 

Table 2: Existing and New Common Measures for WIA Youth Program: 

Youth (ages 19 to 21); 
WIA measures currently in statute: * Entered Employment Rate; 
* Average earnings change in 6 months; 
* Employment retention rate at 6 months; 
* Entered employment/education/training and credential rate; 
Common measures: * Placement in employment and education; 
* Attainment of a degree or certificate; 
* Literacy or numeracy gains. 

Youth (ages 14 to 18); 
WIA measures currently in statute: * Skill attainment rate; 
* Diploma or equivalent attainment rate; 
* Placement and retention in postsecondary education, advanced 
training, or employment rate; 
Common measures: * Placement in employment and education; 
* Attainment of a degree or certificate; 
* Literacy or numeracy gains. 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor. 

[End of table] 

Federal Grant Requirements That Vary across Programs Can Pose 
Challenges: 

Local program directors that received multiple federal grants from 
different agencies expressed difficulty in working across varying 
reporting requirements, funding cycles, and eligibility requirements. 
(See fig. 10.) To a lesser extent, these program directors also 
experienced challenges working across varying program goals and sharing 
information about their clients that participate in multiple federal 
grants. 

* Varying reporting requirements. Directors of 17 of the 19 local 
programs we reviewed that received more than one federal grant stated 
that reconciling varying reporting requirements presented at least some 
challenge.[Footnote 18] One program director explained that each of the 
program's federal funding sources has its own management information 
system, but they all require similar information, causing staff to 
spend a significant amount of time inputting nearly identical data 
elements into separate data collection systems. 

* Varying funding cycles. Fifteen program directors reported at least 
some challenge in managing grants that span different funding cycles. 
Even within the same federal agency, grants can have different fiscal 
year schedules and different grant durations. For example, among the 
large workforce programs, workforce investment boards often award 1- 
year WIA contracts to local programs, and YouthBuild is now a 3-year 
grant.[Footnote 19] Working across differing funding cycles and grant 
years can make it difficult for programs to plan for the future. 

* Differing eligibility requirements. Directors of 13 local programs 
reported that they face challenges reconciling differing eligibility 
requirements. For example, grants from HHS and the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development to support and house homeless youth use 
different definitions of homelessness and varying age criteria, which 
can make it difficult for a local program that depends on both sources 
of funding. Some workforce grants fund youth less than 21 years of age 
and others fund up to 24 years of age, making it especially challenging 
for local programs to combine funding sources. 

Figure 10: Programs Cite Multiple Challenges in Coordinating across 
Federal Grant Programs: 

This figure is a horizontal bar graph showing programs cite multiple 
challenges in coordinating across federal grant programs. The X 
represents the number of program directors who cite each challenge. The 
Y axis represents challenges to coordinating multiple federal grants. 

Varying reporting requirements;	
Great or very great challenge: 10; 
Moderate or some challenge: 7; 
Little or no challenge: 2. 

Varying funding cycles; 
Great or very great challenge: 5; 
Moderate or some challenge: 10; 
Little or no challenge: 4. 

Differing eligibility requirements; 
Great or very great challenge: 4; 
Moderate or some challenge: 9; 
Little or no challenge: 5. 

Varying program goals; 
Great or very great challenge: 2; 
Moderate or some challenge: 8; 
Little or no challenge: 8. 

Ability to share information on clients; 
Great or very great challenge: 2; 
Moderate or some challenge: 5; 
Little or no challenge: 11. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis based on interviews with 39 local program 
directors. 

[End of figure] 

To Address the Various Needs of Disconnected Youth, Federal Agencies 
Have Intensified Efforts to Coordinate across Youth-Serving Programs: 

Recognizing that services addressing the various needs of disconnected 
youth fall under the jurisdictions of multiple agencies, federal 
agencies have intensified efforts to coordinate across the array of 
youth-serving programs. Our past work has highlighted the need for 
federal collaboration given the multiple demands and limited resources 
of the federal government.[Footnote 20] As we noted in our previous 
work on multiple youth programs, enhanced coordination at the federal 
level can lead to more efficient use of resources and a more integrated 
service delivery approach at the local program level.[Footnote 21] 
Related to disconnected youth in particular, the federal officials we 
spoke with highlighted the ongoing coordination efforts of the 
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
(CCJJDP), led by Justice, and the Shared Youth Vision initiative, led 
by Labor, among other collaborative efforts. 

* The CCJJDP, which was authorized in 1974 by the Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention Act, coordinates federal juvenile delinquency 
programs. Among its responsibilities, the council examines how programs 
can be coordinated among federal, state, and local governments to 
better serve at-risk youth. The CCJJDP, which meets on a quarterly 
basis, is composed of nine federal agency members, including those from 
Education, Labor, and HHS, and nine nonfederal members, who are 
juvenile justice practitioners. In recent years, the council has 
broadened its focus to other at-risk youth and is seeking to implement 
some of the 2003 White House Task Force recommendations, including the 
following: (1) improving coordination of mentoring programs, (2) 
developing a unified protocol for federal best practices 
clearinghouses, (3) building a rigorous and unified disadvantaged youth 
research agenda, (4) improving data collection on the well-being of 
families, (5) increasing parents' involvement in federal youth 
programs, (6) targeting youth in public care, (7) targeting youth with 
multiple risk factors, and (8) expanding mentoring programs to special 
target groups. A Justice official said one project under way involves 
researching best practices for federal collaborative efforts to prepare 
a tool kit to assist federal agencies in their ongoing youth 
coordination efforts. 

* The Shared Youth Vision initiative emerged in response to the 2003 
White House Task Force recommendations, which cited a lack of 
communication, coordination, and collaboration among federal agencies 
that provide services to the nation's neediest youth, and out of the 
CCJJDP. It involves officials from Labor, Education, HHS, Justice; the 
Departments of Transportation, Agriculture, Housing and Urban 
Development; the Corporation for National and Community Service; and 
the Social Security Administration. Its mission is to serve as a 
catalyst at the national, state, and local levels to strengthen 
coordination, communication, and collaboration among youth-serving 
agencies to support the neediest youth in their healthy transition to 
adult roles. Labor officials we spoke with see this initiative as a way 
to more holistically support youth who come to the attention of various 
related social service systems, in order to reinforce the effectiveness 
of each intervention. They also said that the initiative can help make 
local youth programs more aware of other services available in their 
communities, such as mental health or substance abuse treatment 
services that youth may need. One senior HHS official noted that the 
initiative can be a powerful way to extend federal partnerships into 
communities, and another official observed that the initiative has led 
to better coordination of resources among agencies for juvenile justice 
programming, mentoring, and youth aging out of foster care. To date, 
the initiative has sponsored several regional forums convening state- 
and local-level officials from various agencies to share information 
and discuss better ways to work together to serve youth. In response to 
state interest in continuing these efforts, Labor awarded grants 
ranging from $27,500 to $116,000 to 16 competitively selected states to 
help the states develop strategic plans to connect their systems that 
serve youth at the state and local levels. For example, Florida is 
using this initiative to bring together the state Department of 
Juvenile Justice, local school districts, and community-based 
organizations to create a one-stop prevention and intervention system 
for court-involved youth on probation. 

* Several federal agencies have undertaken initiatives to improve 
coordination among specific programs or programs serving specific 
subpopulations. For example, Education and HHS are cosponsoring a 4- 
year program to offer long-term support to youth with serious emotional 
disorders and emerging serious mental illness. Through the Safe 
Schools/Healthy Students Initiative, HHS, Education, and Justice are 
collaborating to reduce violence and drug abuse in schools and 
communities. Working through the CCJJDP, HHS's Family and Youth 
Services Bureau and the Corporation for National and Community Service 
(an independent federal agency) have instituted the Federal Mentoring 
Council to coordinate mentoring efforts for disadvantaged youth across 
eight federal agencies. In addition, since 2005, in an effort to 
provide stronger support to local partnerships working with youth, 
several federal agencies, including HHS, Labor, Education, and Justice, 
have created a Web site that provides interactive tools to assist 
communities to form effective partnerships, assess community assets, 
map local and federal resources, and search for evidence-based programs 
to meet the needs of youth, including disconnected youth.[Footnote 22] 

In addition to these ongoing efforts, Congress in 2006 enacted 
legislation creating the Federal Youth Development Council with the 
task--within 2 years--of issuing final recommendations designed to lead 
to improved coordination and assessment of federal youth programs. 
However, the council has not been convened. The council is to include 
members from HHS, Education, Labor, Justice, and several other federal 
entities, as well as other members as appointed by the President, with 
the Secretary of HHS serving as the chairperson. The authorizing 
legislation provides for the council to terminate after meeting at 
least quarterly for 2 years and issuing a final report. Council duties 
include several related to finding ways to better facilitate the 
coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness of federal programs and 
promote high-quality research and evaluation of youth services and 
supports. The final report is to include, among other items, an 
assessment of the needs of youth, especially those in disadvantaged 
situations, and of those who work with youth; a summary of a plan for 
quantifiable goals and objectives for federal programs that assist 
disadvantaged youth; and recommendations for ways to coordinate and 
improve information sharing among the various federal programs and 
agencies serving youth, as well as for ways to better integrate and 
coordinate youth policies at all levels of government. The legislation 
also specified that the council should coordinate its efforts with 
existing interagency coordination entities in order to complement and 
not duplicate efforts. Some assert that the council could reduce 
duplication of effort by agencies and working at cross-purposes and 
lead to a stronger emphasis at the federal level on youth development. 
Funding was not appropriated to the council for fiscal years 2007 and 
2008. HHS did not seek funding for the council in the fiscal year 2008 
President's budget.[Footnote 23] HHS has said that the CCJJDP, of which 
HHS is a member, has begun to address some of the objectives and goals 
proposed for the council. In addition, on February 7, 2008, the 
President issued an executive order to establish an Interagency Working 
Group on Youth Programs. Under the order, HHS would lead this effort to 
coordinate among relevant federal, private, and nongovernment entities; 
facilitate the development of a federal Web site on youth; and 
encourage high standards for assessing program impact. 

Due to the relationships established through some of these ongoing 
formal efforts, officials told us that they now more routinely talk to 
their counterparts in other agencies. For example, Labor officials told 
us that they now contact stakeholders in other agencies as a matter of 
course and as issues arise, and that this practice marks a change from 
prior years. Similarly, a Justice official stated that Justice staff 
now consider contacting officials in other agencies to get their 
expertise and input when awarding grants, recognizing that they are 
serving some of the same populations. While officials spoke highly of 
these coordination efforts, some officials pointed to the importance of 
sustained attention at the appropriate levels to help ensure the 
longevity of these efforts. More specifically, one official noted that 
turnover in agency staff, especially among political appointees, can 
hinder long-term progress and suggested that assigning high-level 
career officials as point persons at each agency could be a way to 
facilitate this coordination and strengthening existing coordinating 
bodies. 

Conclusions: 

Preparing disconnected youth to become self-sufficient adults is an 
important responsibility for all levels of government. The government 
bears some of the costs for youth who have difficulty becoming self- 
sufficient, and who may instead commit crimes, become incarcerated, and 
utilize public systems for assistance. However, with adequate support, 
disconnected youth may be able to obtain the skills needed to make the 
transition to adulthood and ultimately participate fully in society, 
including in the workforce. Our research found that many successful 
locally operated programs serving disconnected youth still struggle to 
access services and opportunities for youth in their communities that 
can help these young people meet their needs and achieve educational 
and employment goals. While all levels of government can help to assist 
this population, the federal government plays an important role by 
providing funding, oversight, and technical assistance to support 
locally operated programs serving disconnected youth. In addition, 
ongoing and relatively new coordination efforts at the federal level 
hold potential for promoting more holistic service delivery to youth 
while also ensuring more efficient use of federal resources, although 
it is too early to know the impact these efforts may have on local 
programs serving youth. Sustained attention and leadership from 
agencies at appropriate levels will be needed to support such 
coordination efforts and help them endure, while at the same time 
minimizing unwarranted duplication among the coordination efforts 
themselves. 

Federal agencies also play an important role in holding programs 
accountable for meeting performance goals, although the pursuit of such 
goals can sometimes lead to unintended consequences. As a result, it is 
important to understand all the ways in which rewarding and sanctioning 
performance can change behavior at the local program level. For 
example, local program directors receiving WIA Youth funds told us that 
meeting the seven current performance measures within 1-year contracts 
provides incentives for the programs to serve youth participants who 
may quickly achieve desired performance goals within the specified time 
frames, potentially leaving behind youth with the most challenges to 
successful outcomes. This potentially means that one of the larger 
federal funding sources that can be used to assist disconnected youth 
may discourage local efforts from serving them. While the new common 
measures, if enacted, may help address this issue, it is important that 
all workforce investment boards understand how to develop long-term 
contracts for local programs that avoid discouraging them from serving 
youth facing increased challenges. Labor has also identified this as a 
concern and has taken some initial steps to address this issue. 
However, unless Labor works more with boards to ensure they have the 
information they need for effective contract development, local 
programs may continue to lack adequate incentives to work with lower- 
skilled youth who could greatly benefit from their services. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

To improve implementation of the WIA Youth Activities program, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Labor work with states and workforce 
investment boards to better ensure they have the information and 
guidance needed to develop and implement contracts that allow local 
programs to serve youth who are in need of more assistance than others 
while still achieving performance goals. This could include (1) working 
with workforce investment boards to identify and understand the 
incentives or constraints that discourage boards from structuring 
contracts with local programs that would assist their efforts to serve 
lower-skilled youth, (2) issuing guidance--based on this input--that 
provides specific examples of ways to develop contracts with local 
service providers that allow them to serve youth at varying skill 
levels, and (3) providing technical assistance to support the 
implementation of this guidance. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to Labor, HHS, Justice, and 
Education for review and comment. Labor agreed with our recommendation, 
and indicated it will work with workforce investment boards to identify 
constraints, issue guidance to the workforce investment system in the 
spring of 2008 on ways to develop contracts that allow programs to 
successfully serve youth at varying skill levels, and provide technical 
assistance to support the implementation of the guidance. Labor's 
written comments are reproduced in appendix IV; we incorporated 
technical comments it provided where appropriate. HHS provided 
additional information about a Web site available to communities to 
provide them support for their efforts to help youth, including 
disconnected youth, and we have added this information to the report. 
HHS's written comments are reproduced in appendix V; it also provided 
technical comments that we incorporated where appropriate. Education 
provided technical comments only, which we also incorporated where 
appropriate. Justice had no comments on the draft report. 

Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretaries of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education, and the Attorney General; 
relevant congressional committees; and other interested parties. We 
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, 
the report will be made available at no charge on GAO's Web site at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if 
you or your staff have any questions about this report. Other contacts 
and major contributors are listed in appendix VI. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Cornelia M. Ashby: 

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: List of Local Programs Interviewed: 

An asterisk indicates programs we visited in-person. In-person 
interviews included a tour of the facilities and meeting with youth 
participants. 

Table 3: 

Organization name: Access Inc.--Youth Empowerment Services; 
City: San Diego; 
State: Calif; 
Brief description: Assists out-of-school youth to complete their high 
school education while exploring and preparing to enter employment in a 
growth industry career ladder in collaboration with a network of 
programs and service providers; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor). 

Organization name: American YouthWorks; 
City: Austin; 
State: Tex; 
Brief description: Helps young people transition into self-sufficient 
adults through education, job training, and community service; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * AmeriCorps (Corporation for 
National and Community Service); 
* YouthBuild (Labor); 
* WIA (Labor); 
* Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Titles I, II, III, IV, and V 
(Education). 

Organization name: Avon Park Youth Academy; 
City: Avon Park; 
State: Fl; 
Brief description: Provides a residential program that focuses on 
vocational education and life skills training, as well as offers a full 
range of academic courses; 
diploma options, including GED; 
and college selection services; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act, Title I (Education)[B]. 

Organization name: * Career Academy at Harbor City High School; 
City: Baltimore; 
State: Md; 
Brief description: Provides educational and occupational training to 
Baltimore City youth; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor). 

Organization name: *Civicorps Schools (formerly East Bay Conservation 
Corps); 
City: Oakland; 
State: Calif; 
Brief description: Promotes citizenship and builds a civil society by 
creating educational models that incorporate service as a way of 
learning; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * No federal funding. 

Organization name: *Civic Works; 
City: Baltimore; 
State: Md; 
Brief description: Engages out-of-school youth and high school students 
through education, community revitalization, and workforce development 
programs; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * AmeriCorps (Corporation for 
National and Community Service); 
* YouthBuild (Labor); 
* WIA (Labor). 

Organization name: *First Place For Youth; 
City: Oakland; 
State: Calif; 
Brief description: Supports youth in their transition from foster care 
to successful adulthood through a supportive housing program, an 
academic enrichment program, counseling, youth community center, and 
collaboration with other organizations; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Supportive Housing Program 
(Department of Housing and Urban Development); 
* Community Development Block Grant (Department of Housing and Urban 
Development). 

Organization name: *Fostering Success; 
City: Nashville; 
State: Tenn; 
Brief description: Aims to help youth aging out of foster care to have 
access to education, employment, health care, housing, and a place to 
call home; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * No federal funding. 

Organization name: Guadalupe Youth and Young Adult Programs; 
City: Guadalupe; 
State: Ariz; 
Brief description: Provides a nurturing environment for Guadalupe youth 
and young adults that combines education, life and leadership skills, 
and job readiness and community services; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * AmeriCorps (Corporation for 
National and Community Service); 
* YouthBuild (Labor). 

Organization name: Harlem Children's Zone; 
City: New York; 
State: N.Y; 
Brief description: Works to enhance the quality of life for children 
and families in some of New York City's most devastated neighborhoods; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * No federal funding. 

Organization name: Haven House Services--Preparation for Independent 
Living Program; 
City: Raleigh; 
State: N.C; 
Brief description: Establishes transitional living program participants 
as the leaseholders of their own market-rate apartments in order to 
address the issue of housing after graduation from its transitional 
living programs; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor); 
* Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS); 
* Supportive Housing Program (Department of Housing and Urban 
Development). 

Organization name: Hawaii Job Corps Center; 
City: Waimanalo; 
State: Hawaii; 
Brief description: Provides academic, career, technical, and life 
skills training resulting in long-term quality employment; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Job Corps (Labor). 

Organization name: Hollywood Cinema Production Resources; 
City: Los Angeles; 
State: Calif; 
Brief description: Trains underserved youth and young adults in the 
crafts and technicians skills of the entertainment industry; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Youth Offender Initiative (Labor). 

Organization name: Improved Solutions for Urban Systems Corporation; 
City: Dayton; 
State: Oh; 
Brief description: Teaches high school dropouts skills in one of four 
fields: construction technology, health care, manufacturing technology, 
and computer technology; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * AmeriCorps (Corporation for 
National and Community Service); 
* YouthBuild (Labor); 
* Youth Offender Initiative (Labor); 
* Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (HHS). 

Organization name: *Janus Youth Programs --Willamette Bridge House 
Transitional Living Program; 
City: Portland; 
State: Ore; 
Brief description: Empowers youth who were previously homeless, 
pregnant, or parenting to support themselves and work on fulfilling 
educational and employment needs, integrating a "self-governance" model 
that incorporates resident participation in all program decision-making 
processes; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Horizon (Department of Housing and 
Urban Development); 
* Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS). 

Organization name: Jobs for Youth/Chicago; 
City: Chicago; 
State: Ill; 
Brief description: Helps young men and women from low-income families 
become a part of the economic mainstream and, in the process, provide 
the business community with motivated job-ready workers; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Adult Basic Education Grants 
(Education); 
* WIA (Labor). 

Organization name: *Joseph L. Meek Professional Technical Campus of the 
Alliance High School; 
City: Portland; 
State: Ore; 
Brief description: Provides Portland youth with vocational and academic 
programs and offers opportunities for students seeking an alternative 
to the traditional high school model; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act, Title I (Education); 
* Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act (Education). 

Organization name: *Larkin Street Youth Services; 
City: San Francisco; 
State: Calif; 
Brief description: Provides a range of housing options-
-from immediate emergency shelter to permanent supportive housing--in 
addition to essential wraparound services that offer young people the 
resources and skills they need to exit street life; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * McKinney-Vento Act (HHS); 
* Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS); 
* Ryan White Care Act, Title IV (HHS). 

Organization name: Las Artes Arts and Educational Center; 
City: Tucson; 
State: Ariz; 
Brief description: Addresses the needs of out-of-school youth by 
providing an opportunity to create public art while earning a GED; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor). 

Organization name: *Latin American Youth Center-Workforce Investment 
and Social Enterprise; 
City: Washington; 
State: D.C; 
Brief description: To offer clear guidance and direction toward a 
career path to youth who do not have marketable skills or who have 
dropped out of school; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor). 

Organization name: Lighthouse Youth Services; 
City: Cincinnati; 
State: Oh; 
Brief description: Provides safe, secure living environments for 
homeless youth and adults, and assists them with developing the skills 
necessary to live self-sufficiently and responsibly; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS); 
* Shelter Plus Care Program (Department of Housing and Urban 
Development); 
* Scattered Sites Grant (Department of Housing and Urban Development). 

Organization name: *Maya Angelou Public Charter School; 
City: Washington; 
State: D.C; 
Brief description: Creates learning environments in low-income 
communities in which teens, particularly those who have not succeeded 
in traditional schools, can develop the academic, social, and 
employment skills they need to build rewarding lives and promote 
positive change in their communities; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * No federal funding[C]. 

Organization name: *MY TURN, Inc; 
City: Brockton; 
State: Mass; 
Brief description: Assists youth in the development and identification 
of their skills, goals, and self-confidence through career exploration, 
employment training, and postsecondary planning in collaboration with 
partnering organizations; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor). 

Organization name: Northwest Piedmont Service Corps; 
City: Winston Salem; 
State: N.C; 
Brief description: Helps young men and women develop workplace and life 
skills to make them successful contributing members of the community; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor). 

Organization name: *Oasis Center; 
City: Nashville; 
State: Tenn; 
Brief description: Addresses the needs of youth in crisis through 
housing and other support services; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS). 

Organization name: *Open Meadow Alternative Schools; 
City: Portland; 
State: Ore; 
Brief description: Aims to retain youth who have not fared well in 
traditional academic settings and those who have already dropped out, 
as well as supporting their transition to college and employment; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor); 
* Community Development Block Grant (Department of Housing and Urban 
Development). 

Organization name: Operation Fresh Start; 
City: Madison; 
State: Wis; 
Brief description: Serves at-risk youth, primarily high school dropouts 
and offenders, through a paid opportunity to learn basic work skills, 
improve basic academic skills, prepare for the high school equivalency 
examination or complete diplomas, secure and retain employment and/or 
postsecondary placement at the end of training, and contribute to the 
community; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * AmeriCorps (Corporation for 
National and Community Service); 
* Community Development Block Grant (Department of Housing and Urban 
Development); 
* HOME Investment Partnerships Program (Department of Housing and Urban 
Development); 
* WIA (Labor). 

Organization name: *Portland Community College-Gateway to College; 
City: Portland; 
State: Ore; 
Brief description: Promotes student success and readiness for an adult 
learning environment by grouping students into learning communities for 
their first term, offering intensive literacy development, maintaining 
rigorous academic standards, and providing individualized support; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Not applicable[D]. 

Organization name: *Project CRAFT/Nashville; 
City: Nashville; 
State: Tenn; 
Brief description: Strives to improve educational levels, teach 
vocational skills, and reduce recidivism among adjudicated youth while 
addressing the home-building industry's need for entry-level workers by 
incorporating hands-on training in the construction trade with academic 
instruction; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Youth Offender Grant (Labor). 


Organization name: Promise House-Transitional Living Services Program; 
City: Dallas; 
State: Tex; 
Brief description: Offers older youth who have nowhere to go, no 
family, no money, and nowhere to live the opportunity not only to learn 
how to live independently, but to finish their education, find 
meaningful work, and become productive citizens; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Continuum of Care Grant (Department 
of Housing and Urban Development); 
* Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS). 

Organization name: * Sasha Bruce Youthwork-Independent Living Program; 
City: Washington; 
State: D.C; 
Brief description: Strives to improve the lives of runaway, homeless, 
neglected, and at-risk youth and their families in the Washington area 
by providing shelter, counseling, life skills training, and positive 
youth development activities; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Stewart McKinney Homeless 
Assistance Act (HHS). 

Organization name: School to Career; 
City: San Antonio; 
State: Tex; 
Brief description: Promotes and sustains communication among community 
partners to leverage resources and supportive services for young adults 
aging out of the foster care system; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: 
* No federal funding. 

Organization name: Teen Living Programs-Transitional Living Program; 
City: Chicago; 
State: Ill; 
Brief description: Assists youth who are homeless to permanently leave 
the streets, secure stable housing, and build self-sufficient, 
satisfying lives; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS). 

Organization name: Welcome New Jersey-Camden Community Connections; 
City: Camden; 
State: N.J; 
Brief description: Provides life skills management, job readiness 
skills training, education tutorial and academic progress assistance, 
and community service and job opportunities to youth living in Camden 
County who are at risk of adjudication through the juvenile justice 
system; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * High Growth Youth Offender 
Initiative (Labor); 
* WIA (Labor). 

Organization name: *Youth Opportunity (YO!) Baltimore; 
City: Baltimore; 
State: M.D; 
Brief description: Helps City youth receive the education and career 
skills training needed to become successful adults; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * WIA (Labor); 
* Youth Opportunity (Labor). 

Organization name: *Youth Opportunity (YO) Boston; 
City: Boston; 
State: Mass; 
Brief description: YO Boston is a citywide program that helps young 
people on the wrong path make a turn toward a positive, self- 
sufficient future by connecting them with opportunities and employment; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * No federal funding[E]. 

Organization name: YouthBuild McLean County; 
City: Bloomington; 
State: Ill; 
Brief description: Offers young people an opportunity to build their 
futures and their communities through education, leadership 
development, job training, and the rehabilitation and production of 
affordable housing; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * AmeriCorps (Corporation for 
National and Community Service); 
* YouthBuild (Labor); 
* Urban and Rural Community Economic Development Program (HHS); 
* Self- Help Housing Loan program (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 

Organization name: *Youth Employment Partnership, Inc; 
City: Oakland; 
State: Calif; 
Brief description: Provides training, job placement, access to 
education, and comprehensive support services to enhance the employment 
opportunities of underserved youth; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * AmeriCorps (Corporation for 
National and Community Service); 
* WIA (Labor); 
* YouthBuild (Labor). 

Organization name: Youth In Need--Transitional Living Program; 
City: St. Charles; 
State: Mo; 
Brief description: Offers homeless youth opportunities to learn 
independent living skills, work toward completing their education, and 
become self-sufficient members of the community; 
Key federal funding source(s)[A]: * Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS). 

Source: GAO analysis of data from 39 local programs. 

[A] Key federal funding sources as reported by the 39 program 
directors. GAO did not verify this information. 

[B] This funding source provides only 1 percent of the program's 
budget. 

[C] Previously, the program reported receiving federal funding through 
the TRIO grant (Education); Safe Schools/Healthy Schools (HHS, Justice, 
and Education); and Titles I, II, and V of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, as amended (Education). 

[D] This program received less than $10,000 from the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, Title I (Education) in fiscal year 2006. 

[E] Initially, this program was funded by the federal Youth Opportunity 
Grant. However, program authorization expired in fiscal year 2003 and 
funding has not been appropriated for the program. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Scope and Methodology: 

Our review focused on (1) the characteristics of programs that provide 
services to disconnected youth, (2) the key elements of locally 
operated programs that program directors attribute to their success in 
reconnecting youth to education and employment, and (3) the challenges 
that are involved in implementing and operating these programs and how 
federal agencies are helping to address these challenges. For the 
purposes of this engagement, we defined disconnected youth as 
individuals between the ages of 14 and 24 who have dropped out of 
school and are not employed, or do not have supportive social networks, 
which may help youth access employment or educational opportunities. 
This definition is intended to include youth who are close to aging out 
of the foster care system, in the juvenile justice system, homeless and 
runaway youth, and youth who have dropped out of school. We did not 
focus on prevention efforts, such as school-focused dropout prevention 
programs, or on youth with disabilities or migrant youth, although 
prevention efforts may be part of programs we reviewed, and youth with 
disabilities and migrant youth may be among the disconnected youth 
these programs serve. 

To obtain background information on the role the federal government 
plays in assisting programs that serve disconnected youth, we 
identified four primary federal agencies as having programs for this 
population: the Departments of Labor, HHS, Justice, and Education. We 
selected these agencies based on their legislative mandate to 
administer relevant federal programs, our previous work, and reports 
from the Congressional Research Service and the White House Task Force 
for Disadvantaged Youth, and discussions with federal officials. 
However, other federal agencies, such as the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development and the Corporation for National and Community 
Service, may also have programs that serve this population. We talked 
with agency officials to identify the key programs within these four 
agencies that serve disconnected youth. We reviewed the relevant laws, 
regulations, appropriations, and documents of 15 key federal programs 
as well as coordinating bodies involved with assisting disconnected 
youth, and synthesized information from interviews with appropriate 
federal officials. 

To obtain information on the types of programs that provide services to 
disconnected youth and to understand the key elements that contribute 
to the success of locally operated programs and the challenges they 
face, we interviewed directors of local programs identified by agency 
officials and 11 experts on youth issues as successfully helping 
disconnected youth reach educational or employment goals. We selected 
experts based on their understanding of and range of perspectives on 
youth issues as well as their knowledge of efforts under way at the 
local level. Specifically, we identified them through reviews of key 
studies, participation in the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged 
Youth, and other conferences focused on youth issues. In speaking with 
the experts, we asked them to identify other experts in the field who 
were working on disconnected youth issues, and we reviewed our list 
with three of the experts to ensure we had a comprehensive list. We 
asked the experts and agency officials to identify local programs that 
could serve as examples or models for expansion or replication that 
represent various approaches or subpopulations and geographic 
diversity, including programs in both urban and rural locations. We 
also asked them to indicate the specific reasons why they were 
recommending the program as successful and whether evaluation results 
or outcome data were available for the local effort. However, many 
noted that rigorous program evaluations are not readily available. 
Likewise, when we asked programs we interviewed whether they had 
conducted impact evaluations of their programs, few had completed 
evaluations. We did not review any available evaluations in determining 
whether to include a program in our review. 

Out of 100 programs that were identified, we selected 39 local programs 
to include in our review. We selected a mix of programs in 16 states 
and the District of Columbia that provided different types of services, 
such as transitional living programs, employment skills training 
programs, and alternative education programs; that targeted different 
subpopulations; and that represented geographic diversity, including a 
mix of urban and rural locations. (See app. I for a list of the 
programs we interviewed.) Most of the programs received federal 
funding, but some relied primarily on state, local, or private funding 
sources. For organizations with multiple programs focused on 
disadvantaged youth, we asked the executive director to identify the 
single program that had the most long-standing success in reconnecting 
youth to education and employment. 

We interviewed directors of these programs using a standard set of 
questions. We asked directors to provide information on the key 
elements they thought made the program successful, implementing and 
operating challenges, gaps in services provided in their community, 
funding sources, and federal grants and policies. Prior to the 
interviews, we reviewed our list of closed-ended and open-ended 
questions with internal and external experts and conducted two pretests 
to ensure the questions were appropriate and clear. To use resources 
most efficiently, we conducted in-person interviews with 19 programs in 
six locations where there were a number of programs to visit, that 
enabled us to have broad geographic coverage, and where we could see 
examples of the different types of programs assisting disconnected 
youth. Site visit locations included Baltimore, Maryland; Boston and 
Brockton, Massachusetts; Nashville, Tennessee; Portland, Oregon; San 
Francisco and Oakland, California; and Washington, D.C. On our site 
visits, we toured facilities and met with youth at the programs we 
visited to learn about their experiences in the program. In addition, 
we spoke with representatives from various citywide initiatives in 
Baltimore, Boston, and San Francisco to gain an understanding of their 
efforts at cross-system collaboration to serve disconnected youth. We 
completed the remaining interviews by phone. We conducted this 
performance audit from May 2007 to February 2008 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 
based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Key Federal Grant Programs That Serve Disconnected Youth: 

Agency or office: Department of Labor: Office of the Secretary; 
Federal grant: Job Corps; 
Eligible youth: Low-income youth ages 16 to 24; 
Purpose: To assist eligible youth who need and can benefit from an 
intensive program, operated in a group setting in residential and 
nonresidential centers, to become more responsible, employable, and 
productive citizens. 

Agency or office: Department of Labor: Employment and Training 
Administration; 
Federal grant: Workforce Investment Act Youth Activities; 
Eligible youth: Low- income Individuals ages 14 to 21 who have a 
barrier to completing an educational program or securing or holding 
employment; 
Purpose: To make available to youth activities in workforce training, 
education attainment, community involvement, leadership development, 
and supports while in the program and for follow-up services not less 
than 12 months after program completion. 

Agency or office: Department of Labor: Employment and Training 
Administration; 
Federal grant: YouthBuild; 
Eligible youth: School dropouts ages 16 to 24, who are members of a low-
income family, in foster care, or are youth offenders, disabled, 
migrant, or children of incarcerated parents; 
Purpose: To provide disadvantaged youth with opportunities for 
employment, education, leadership development, and training through the 
rehabilitation or construction of housing for homeless individuals and 
low-income families, and of public facilities. 

Agency or office: Department of Labor: Employment and Training 
Administration; 
Federal grant: Youth Offender Grants; 
Eligible youth: 14 to 24-year-old youth offenders, gang members, and 
youth at risk of court or gang involvement; 
Purpose: To increase employability and employment of youth offenders, 
gang members, and youth at risk of court or gang involvement. 

Agency or office: Department of Labor: Employment and Training 
Administration; 
Federal grant: Youth Opportunity Grants; 
(Program authorization expired in fiscal year 2003 and funding has not 
been appropriated for the program); 
Eligible youth: All 14 to 21-year-olds residing in designated 
impoverished areas; 
Purpose: To provide education, employment, and leadership development 
activities and supports for youth in high- poverty neighborhoods to 
increase their long-term employment. 

Agency or office: Department of Health and Human Services: Children's 
Bureau; 
Federal grant: Chafee Foster Care Independence Program; 
Eligible youth: Children who are likely to remain in foster care as 
well as youth 18 to 21 who have aged out of the foster care system; 
Purpose: To identify youth likely to remain in foster care until age 18 
and assist these youth up to age 21 to make the transition to self-
sufficiency by providing housing and educational and vocational 
services, among other services. 

Agency or office: Department of Health and Human Services: Family and 
Youth Services Bureau; 
Federal grant: Runaway and Homeless Youth Program; 
Eligible youth: Emergency services for homeless and runaway youth under 
18 years of age. Transitional housing services for homeless youth ages 
16 to 21; 
Purpose: To provide comprehensive services for youth in at-risk 
situations and their families. The program supports emergency shelter 
and services and street-based education and outreach to young people, 
and provides older homeless youth with longer-term housing and 
assistance to develop the skills and resources to live independently. 

Agency or office: Department of Education: Office of Vocational and 
Adult Education; 
Federal grant: Adult Education Basic Grants to States; 
Eligible youth: Adults and out-of-school youth ages 16 and older; 
Purpose: To provide adult education and literacy services, including 
workplace literacy services, family literacy services, and English 
literacy and civic education programs. 

Agency or office: Department of Education: Office of Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools; 
Federal grant: Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition 
Training for Incarcerated Youth; 
Eligible youth: A person age 25 or younger who is incarcerated in a 
state prison and is within 5 years of release or parole; 
Purpose: To assist and encourage incarcerated youth to acquire 
functional literacy, and life and job skills through the pursuit of 
postsecondary education certificates, associate of arts degrees, and 
bachelor's degrees. 

Agency or office: Department of Education: Office of Elementary and 
Secondary Education; 
Federal grant: Education for Homeless Children and Youth--Grants for 
States and Local Activities; 
Eligible youth: Homeless children, including preschoolers and youth; 
Purpose: To ensure that homeless children, including preschoolers and 
youth, have equal access to free and appropriate public education. 
Among other things, this grant also supports an office for the 
coordination of the education of homeless children and youth in each 
state. 

Agency or office: Department of Education: Office of Elementary and 
Secondary Education; 
Federal grant: Title I-D Prevention and Intervention Programs for 
Children and Youth Who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk--Grants 
for States and Localities; 
Eligible youth: Children and youths in state-run institutions for 
juveniles and in adult correctional institutions; 
Purpose: To improve educational services for neglected and delinquent 
children and youth in state-run institutions for juveniles and in adult 
correctional institutions. 

Agency or office: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention; 
Federal grant: Part E Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising 
New Initiatives and Programs; 
Eligible youth: Individuals 17 and under involved in the juvenile 
justice system; 
some states may provide services until their 24th birthday; 
Purpose: To support programs that will develop, test, or demonstrate 
promising new initiatives that may prevent, control, or reduce juvenile 
delinquency. 

Agency or office: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention; 
Federal grant: Title II B--State Formula Grants; 
Eligible youth: Individuals 17 and under involved in the juvenile 
justice system; 
some states may provide services until their 24th birthday; 
Purpose: To support the planning, establishment, operation, 
coordination, and evaluation of projects for the development of more 
effective juvenile delinquency programs and improved juvenile justice 
systems. 

Agency or office: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention; 
Federal grant: Juvenile Accountability Block Grant; 
Eligible youth: Individuals 17 and under involved in the juvenile 
justice system; 
some states may provide services until their 24th birthday; 
Purpose: To strengthen their juvenile justice systems and encourage 
juveniles to be accountable for their actions. 

Agency or office: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention; 
Federal grant: Title V Community Prevention Block Grants; 
Eligible youth: Individuals under age 17 involved in the juvenile 
justice system; 
some states may provide services until their 24th birthday; 
Purpose: To support local projects and activities for youth who have 
had contact with the juvenile justice system or who are likely to have 
contact with the juvenile justice system. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

U.S. Department of Labor: 
Employment and Training Administration: 
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.: 
Washington, D.C. 20210: 

February 5, 2008: 

Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby: 
Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W.: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Ashby: 

Thank you for sharing the Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft 
report entitled, Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some 
of the Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth to 
Education and Employment with the Department. The Department found the 
report to be very informative. In the report, GAO provides guidance on 
improving the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act, Youth 
Activities program. GAO recommends the Department ".work with states 
and Workforce Investment Boards to better ensure they have the 
information and guidance needed to develop and implement contracts that 
allow local programs to serve youth who are in need of more assistance 
than others while still achieving performance goals." 

The Department agrees with this recommendation and intends to work with 
Workforce Investment Boards to identify constraints and plans to issue 
guidance to the Workforce Investment system in the spring of 2008 that 
will provide specific examples of ways to develop contracts with local 
service providers that allow them to successfully serve youth at 
varying skill levels. In addition, the Department will provide 
technical assistance to support the implementation of this guidance. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Thomas M. Dowd: 
Administrator: 
Office of Policy Development and Research: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services: 

Department Of Health & Human Services: 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation: 

February 8, 2008: 

Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby: 
Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Ashby: 

Enclosed are the Department's comments on the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled: Disconnected 
Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some of the Challenges Faced by 
Local Programs that Reconnect Youth to Education and Employment (GAO 08-
313). 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on 
this report before its publication. 

Sincerely, 

Rebecca Hermard for: 

Vince Ventimiglia: 
Assistant Secretary for Legislation: 

Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services On The 
Government Accountability Office's (Gao) Draft Report Entitled, 
"Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some Of The 
Challenges Faced By Local Programs That Reconnect Youth To Education 
And Employment (GAO-08-313):  

GAO Recommendation:  

To improve implementation of the WIA Youth Activities program, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Labor work with states and Workforce 
Investment Boards to better ensure they have the information and 
guidance needed to develop and implement contracts that allow local 
programs to serve youth who are in need of more assistance than others 
while still achieving performance goals. This could include (1) working 
with Workforce Investment Boards to identify and understand the 
incentives or constraints that discourage boards from structuring 
contracts with local programs that would assist their efforts to serve 
lower-skilled youth, (2) issuing guidanceï¿½based on this inputï¿½that 
provides specific examples of ways to develop contracts with local 
service providers that allow them to serve youth at varying skill 
levels, and (3) providing technical assistance to support the 
implementation of this guidance. 

Response to Recommendation:  

Since 2005, in an effort to provide stronger support to local 
partnerships as they work to support youth, several Federal agencies, 
including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department 
of Labor, the Department of Education, and the Department of Justice, 
have created a website called the Community Guide to Helping America's 
Youth [hyperlink, http://www.helpingamericasyouth.gov]. This website 
provides interactive tools to assist communities as they seek to form 
effective partnerships, assess community assets, map local and Federal 
resources, and search for evidence-based programs to meet the needs of 
youth, including disconnected youth. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Cornelia M. Ashby, (202) 512-7215, [email protected]: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Gale Harris (Assistant Director) and Kate Blumenreich (Analyst-in- 
Charge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Kim Siegal and Ashanta 
Williams made significant contributions to this report in all aspects 
of the work. Tiffany Boiman, George Erhart, Adrienne Fernandes, 
Jessikah Foulk, Tamara Fucile, Claire Li, and Flavio Menasce also made 
contributions to the report. Susannah Compton contributed to writing 
this report. Luann Moy provided key technical support, and Jessica 
Botsford provided legal support. Avrum Ashery developed the graphics 
for the report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

African American Children in Foster Care: Additional HHS Assistance 
Needed to Help States Reduce the Proportion in Care. GAO-07-816. 
Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2007. 

YouthBuild Program: Analysis of Outcome Data Needed to Determine Long- 
Term Benefits. GAO-07-82. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2007. 

Child Welfare: Improving Social Service Program, Training, and 
Technical Assistance Information Would Help Address Longstanding 
Service-Level and Workforce Challenges. GAO-07-75. Washington, D.C.: 
October 6, 2006. 

Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but 
Labor Needs to Make Data Available. GAO-06-53. Washington, D.C.: 
December 9, 2005. 

Foster Youth: HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services and 
Monitoring of States' Independent Living Programs. GAO-05-25. 
Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2004. 

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. 

Juvenile Justice: OJJDP Reporting Requirements for Discretionary and 
Formula Grantees and Concerns About Evaluation Studies. GAO-02-23. 
Washington, D.C.: October 30, 2001. 

At-Risk Youth: School-Community Collaborations Focus on Improving 
Student Outcomes. GAO-01-66. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2000. 

Foster Care: Effectiveness of Independent Living Services Unknown. GAO/ 
HEHS-00-13. Washington, D.C.: November 5, 1999. 

Foster Care: Challenges in Helping Youths Live Independently. GAO/T- 
HEHS-99-121. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 1999. 

At-Risk and Delinquent Youths: Fiscal Year 1998 Programs. GAO/HEHS-99- 
88R. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 1999. 

Job Corps: Links with Labor Market Improved but Vocational Training 
Performance Overstated. GAO/HEHS-99-15. Washington, D.C.: November 4, 
1998. 

At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Programs Lack Coordinated 
Federal Effort. GAO/T-HEHS-98-38. Washington, D.C.: November 5, 1997. 

At-Risk and Delinquent Youths: Fiscal Year 1996 Programs. GAO/HEHS-97- 
211R. Washington, D.C.: September 2, 1997. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] There is not a commonly accepted definition of disconnected youth. 
For the purposes of this study, we define disconnected youth as youth 
aged 14 to 24 who are not in school and not working, or who lack family 
or other support networks. 

[2] In December 2002, the President of the United States established 
the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth to develop for his 
consideration a comprehensive federal response to the problems of youth 
failure, under existing authorities and programs, with a focus on 
enhanced agency accountability and effectiveness. 

[3] Social networks of family, friends, and communities can provide 
assistance in the form of employment connections, health insurance 
coverage, tuition, and other supports such as housing and financial 
assistance. See Adrienne Fernandes, Vulnerable Youth: Background and 
Policies, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C.: April 24, 
2007. 

[4] The 2.3 million figure is based on data from March 2006 cited in 
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies. The 5.2 million figure is 
based on 2001 data, cited in 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). 
These estimates refer to youth aged 16 to 24, which differs from the 
definition for youth (aged 14 to 24) used in this report, and are 
derived from a dataset that includes the civilian, non- 
institutionalized population. 

[5] See GAO, African American Children in Foster Care: Additional HHS 
Assistance Needed to Help States Reduce the Proportion in Care, GAO-07-
816 (Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2007), for more information on 
overrepresentation of African-American children in foster care. 

[6] Other federal agencies also play an important role in funding 
programs that serve disconnected youth, including the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development and the Corporation for National and 
Community Service, among others. 

[7] Local workforce investment boards are composed of representatives 
of businesses, local educational entities, labor organizations, 
community-based organizations, economic development agencies, and one- 
stop partners. WIA required states and localities to bring together 
federally funded employment and training programs into a single 
comprehensive workforce system, called the one-stop system. 

[8] The Transitional Living Program is one of three programs that 
constitute HHS's Runaway and Homeless Youth program. 

[9] The programs we reviewed are not a representative sample of the 
range of programs that serve disconnected youth. See appendix II for 
more information on the selection criteria we used. 

[10] Average length of stay is longer for transitional living programs 
than for emergency shelters for youth. 

[11] The AmeriCorps program, administered within the Corporation for 
National and Community Service, provides financial awards for education 
to individuals upon completion of intensive public service that meets 
educational, public safety, health, and environmental needs. 

[12] In 2005, GAO surveyed 36 grantees that received Labor's Youth 
Opportunity funding. The grantees also identified obstacles faced by 
their clients--homelessness, lack of family support, mental health 
problems, and low levels of academic achievement--as a major 
implementation challenge. See GAO, Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons 
Can be Learned from Program, but Labor Needs to Make Data Available, 
GAO-06-53 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2005). 

[13] In a 2006 report on challenges faced by child welfare agencies, 
GAO reported that in 2006 more than half of state child welfare 
agencies said that they were dissatisfied with mental health services, 
substance abuse services, transportation services, and housing for 
parents of at-risk families. States interviewed for the report cited 
that funding constraints were among the reasons maintaining an adequate 
level of services was difficult. See GAO, Child Welfare: Improving 
Social Service Program, Training, and Technical Assistance Information 
Would Help Address Longstanding Service-Level and Workforce Challenges, 
GAO-07-75 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 6, 2006). 

[14] Similarly, 28 out of 36 of the Youth Opportunity grantees 
interviewed for GAO's 2005 report also cited a lack of jobs in the 
community as an implementation challenge. 

[15] We have documented a similar effect of performance benchmarks on 
local programs' selection criteria in the WIA Adult and Dislocated 
Workers programs. See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Improvements 
Needed in Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of 
WIA's Effectiveness, GAO-02-275 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2002). 

[16] We have similarly found in a prior report that programs receiving 
WIA funds preferred to focus on in-school youth because serving out-of- 
school youth was much more difficult and expensive, and less effective. 
See GAO, 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.: Feb. 23, 2004). 

[17] The Workforce Investment Act, initially authorized through fiscal 
year 2003 may be one legislative vehicle for establishing new measures. 
Congress has not yet reauthorized WIA, although it has continued to 
appropriate funds for WIA programs each year. 

[18] Program directors responded on the severity of these challenges 
using a five-point scale as follows: very great challenge, great 
challenge, moderate challenge, some challenge, and little or no 
challenge. 

[19] Labor officials explained that 95 percent of the funds for the 3- 
year YouthBuild grant are spent on program operations in the first 2 
years, with the remaining 5 percent allowed for follow-up with 
participants during the third grant year. 

[20] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

[21] GAO, At Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Programs Lack 
Coordinated Federal Effort, GAO/T-HEHS-98-38 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 5, 
1997). 

[22] For more information, see the Community Guide to Helping America's 
Youth at [hyperlink, http://www.helpingamericasyouth.gov]. 

[23] Pub. L. No.109-365, title VIII, which established the council, 
authorized appropriations of $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 
2007 and 2008 to carry out the title, although funds were not 
appropriated. 

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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

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

Public Affairs: 

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

*** End of document. ***