Job Corps: High Costs and Mixed Results Raise Questions About Program's
Effectiveness (Letter Report, 06/30/95, GAO/HEHS-95-180).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on Job
Corps program operations, focusing on: (1) who is being served and the
services provided; (2) the outcomes that the program is achieving in
relation to program cost and employers satisfaction with Job Corps
students they hire; and (3) whether the long-standing practice of
awarding sole source contracts for vocational training services is cost
effective.

GAO found that: (1) Job Corps is serving severely disadvantaged youth,
and providing them with comprehensive services in a residential setting;
(2) 68 percent of the students that left Job Corps in the year ending
June 30, 1994, encountered several barriers to employment, such as not
having a high school diploma, lacking basic skills, receiving public
assistance, and having limited English proficiency; (3) 20 percent of
Job Corps' funds were spent on basic education and vocational skills
training in the year ending June 30, 1994; (4) Job Corps students that
complete vocational training are five times more likely to get a
training-related job, which pays a 25 percent higher wage; (5) most
employers are generally satisfied with Job Corps students' basic work
habits and the technical training provided by the Job Corps program; (6)
only moderate differences existed between the results achieved by of
national contractors and Job Corps training providers, as national
contractors had a programwide job placement rate of 59 percent and Job
Corps providers had a job placement rate of 54 percent in program year
1993; and (7) the continued use of national contractors as training
providers is not cost effective because they account for nearly
one-third of Job Corps' vocational training expenditures, and the
training they provide is primarily in a declining occupational category.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-95-180
     TITLE:  Job Corps: High Costs and Mixed Results Raise Questions 
             About Program's Effectiveness
      DATE:  06/30/95
   SUBJECT:  Employment or training programs
             Vocational schools
             Minors
             Education or training costs
             Labor statistics
             Sole source contracts
             Vocational education
             Unemployment problem areas
             Disadvantaged persons
             Cost effectiveness analysis
IDENTIFIER:  DOL Job Corps Program
             Job Training Partnership Act Program
             JTPA
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. 
Senate

June 1995

JOB CORPS - HIGH COSTS AND MIXED
RESULTS RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT
PROGRAM'S EFFECTIVENESS

GAO/HEHS-95-180

Job Corps Program


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  CCC - civilian conservation center
  GED - general equivalency diploma
  JTPA - Job Training Partnership Act
  SPAMIS - Student Pay, Allotment and Management Information System
  SPIR - Standardized Program Information Report

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-261067

June 30, 1995

The Honorable Nancy Landon Kassebaum
Chairman, Committee on Labor
 and Human Resources
United States Senate

Dear Madam Chairman: 

Job Corps is an employment and training program aimed at providing
severely disadvantaged youth with a comprehensive array of services,
generally in a residential setting.  Administered by the Department
of Labor, Job Corps provides funds directly to public, private, and
nonprofit organizations to operate local centers.  Job Corps is the
most expensive federal youth employment and training program, with
current appropriations of about $1 billion.  The administration has
proposed expanding the program over the next several years, adding 50
centers to the 111 Job Corps centers in operation today and
increasing student capacity, currently about 41,000, by 50 percent. 
While expansion of the program is planned, concerns have been raised
recently by the Congress, the Department of Labor's Inspector
General, and others about the program's effectiveness and its high
cost. 

In light of these concerns, you requested that we provide you with
information on the program's operations.  Specifically, you were
interested in (1) who is being served and the services provided, (2)
the outcomes the program is achieving in relation to the program's
cost and employers' satisfaction with Job Corps students they hire,
and (3) Labor's use of national contractors to provide vocational
training services. 

To address your request, we met with Labor officials responsible for
Job Corps, analyzed national data on program participants, and
visited six Job Corps centers to obtain detailed information on their
costs and services and the outcomes achieved.  We also conducted a
telephone survey of employers to obtain information on job retention
and employers' degree of satisfaction with Job Corps students'
preparation for work.  We did our work from December 1994 through May
1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.  (See app.  I for a more detailed discussion of our scope
and methodology and app.  II for a detailed discussion of the survey
of employers who hired Job Corps students.)


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

We found that Job Corps is serving its intended population--severely
disadvantaged youth--and provides them with intensive services in a
residential setting, factors that account for the program's high
cost.  Of the approximately 63,000 students who left Job Corps in the
year ending June 30, 1994, our analysis shows that 68 percent had two
or more barriers to employment, such as not having a high school
diploma, lacking basic skills, receiving public assistance, and
having limited English proficiency.  Because Job Corps provides a
comprehensive program of services in a controlled, residential
environment, nearly half of its expenditures for this period were for
residential living expenses and the wide range of services, such as
social skills instruction, which includes learning self-control and
arriving on time for appointments.  About 20 percent of the funds was
spent for basic education and vocational skills training. 

While Job Corps reported nationally that 59 percent of its students
obtained jobs (and another 11 percent enrolled in further education
programs), we found that about half of the jobs obtained by students
from the six sites we visited were low-skill jobs--such as fast food
worker--not related to the training provided by Job Corps. 
Nationally, a little over one-third of the 63,000 students completed
their vocational training.  Yet, at the six sites we visited, we
found that students who completed their vocational training were five
times more likely to get a training-related job, and training-related
jobs paid 25 percent higher wages ($6.60 an hour versus $5.28 an
hour).  Furthermore, we estimate that about 40 percent of funds at
these sites was spent on students who did not complete their
vocational skills training. 

Our survey of employers who hired Job Corps students showed that
employers were generally satisfied with the students' basic work
habits and the specific technical training the program provided. 
Although these students did not work long for their initial
employer--88 percent were no longer in their initial job--the
majority of employers said they would hire them again.  However, our
survey raised serious concerns about the validity of reported job
placement information.  Despite Job Corps' job placement verification
procedures, about 15 percent of the placements in our sample were
potentially invalid:  a number of employers reported that they had
not hired students reportedly placed at their businesses, and other
employers could not be found. 

We have questions about whether Job Corps' long-standing practice of
awarding sole source contracts to national contractors for about a
third of Job Corps' vocational training is cost effective.  A
principal justification for these contracts, some of which have been
awarded for 25 years or more, is the contractors' ability to place
students nationwide.  However, Labor lacked the data needed to
determine how many placements, in fact, were made by national
training contractors.  According to Job Corps data, nearly half of
all job placements were found by the student, family, or friends. 
Thus, it is unclear whether Job Corps benefits from the nationwide
placement network of the national training contractors.  Furthermore,
most of the training the contractors provide is in the construction
trades, which represent a small proportion of employment in the
United States and which has declined over the past several years. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Job Corps was established in 1964 to address employment barriers
faced by severely disadvantaged youth throughout the United States. 
Thirty years later, it remains as a nationally operated program at a
time when responsibility for other federal training programs, most
notably the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), has been delegated
to state and local agencies. 

In program year 1993,\1 the most recent 1-year period for which
complete spending and outcomes data were available, about
three-fourths of the program's total expenditures of about $933
million was for center operating costs, such as staff salaries,
equipment, maintenance, and utilities (see fig.  1).  The remaining
funds were used for student allowances and payments; contracts for
outreach, screening, and placement services; contracts with national
training providers; and facilities construction, rehabilitation, and
acquisition. 

   Figure 1:  Distribution of 1993
   Job Corps Expenditures

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  "Other" includes costs associated with facilities
construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition; curriculum and staff
development; and data and property management support. 

Source:  Job Corps data. 

Currently, 111 Job Corps centers are located throughout the United
States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico (see fig.  2). 
Although most states have at least one center, four states have no
centers--Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Wyoming--while
several states have four or more centers (California, Kentucky,
Oklahoma, Oregon, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington). 
Private corporations and nonprofit organizations, selected through a
competitive procurement process, operate 81 centers; the Departments
of Agriculture and the Interior, as required by law,\2 directly
operate 30 centers, called civilian conservation centers, under
interagency agreements. 

   Figure 2:  Location of Job
   Corps Centers

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


While the program's capacity has fluctuated over the years since its
establishment, the current capacity closely approximates its original
size.  In 1966, about 41,900 slots were available at 106 centers. 
Today, approximately 41,000 slots are available at 111 centers,
ranging in size from 120 slots at a center in California to 2,234 at
another center in Kentucky.  Appendix III lists the centers, their
student capacity, and their operating costs for program year 1993. 

Job Corps enrolls youth aged 16 to 24 who are economically
disadvantaged, in need of additional education or training, and
living in a disruptive environment.  Enrollments are voluntary, and
training programs are open-entry and self-paced, allowing students to
enroll throughout the year and to progress at their own pace. 
Individuals enroll in Job Corps by submitting applications through
outreach and screening contractors, which include state employment
service agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private for-profit
firms.  On average, students spend about 8 months in the program but
can stay up to 2 years. 

Each Job Corps center provides services including basic education,
vocational skills training, social skills instruction, counseling
(for personal problems as well as for alcohol and drug abuse), health
care, room and board, and recreational activities.  Each center
offers training in several vocational areas, such as business
occupations, automotive repair, construction trades, and health
occupations.  These programs are taught by center staff, private
contractors, or instructors provided under contracts with national
labor and business organizations.  Participation in Job Corps can
lead to placement in a job or enrollment in further training or
education.  It can also lead to educational achievements such as
attaining a high school diploma and reading or math skill gains. 

One feature that makes Job Corps different from other federal
training programs is its residential component.  For example,
employment training services under JTPA, the federal government's
principal job training program for the economically disadvantaged,
are provided in a nonresidential setting.  Under Job Corps, 90
percent of the students live at the centers, allowing services to be
provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  The premise for boarding
students is that most come from a disruptive environment and
therefore can benefit from receiving education and training in a new
setting where a variety of support services are available around the
clock.  The residential component is a major reason the program is so
expensive. 

While in the program, students receive allowance and incentive
payments.  For example, initially a student receives a base allowance
of about $50 per month, increasing to about $80 per month after 6
months.  In addition, students are eligible to receive incentive
bonuses of between $25 and $80 each if they earn an exceptional
rating on their performance evaluations, held every 60 days. 
Students can also earn bonuses of $250 each for graduating from high
school or receiving a general equivalency diploma, completing
vocational training, and getting a job.  Students receive an
additional $100 if the job is related to the vocational training they
received while in Job Corps.  Students obtain jobs through a variety
of mechanisms, including finding the job on their own, being referred
by their vocational instructor, and being placed by the Job Corps
center or a contracted placement agency. 

The last comprehensive study of the effectiveness of the Job Corps
program was done nearly 15 years ago.\3 While that study concluded
that the program was cost effective--returning $1.46 to society for
every dollar being spent on the program--more recently, audits by
Labor's Inspector General,\4 media reports, and congressional
oversight hearings have surfaced issues and concerns with the
program's operations.  Among these are concerns about the quality of
training and outcomes in relation to program costs, incidents of
violence occurring at some centers, and the overall management of the
program. 


--------------------
\1 Program year refers to the 12-month period from July 1 through
June 30.  Program year 1993 covers the period from July 1, 1993, to
June 30, 1994. 

\2 Section 427 of JTPA, as amended by the Job Training Reform
Amendments of 1992, states that no funds may be used to carry out any
contract with a nongovernmental entity to administer or manage a
civilian conservation center of the Job Corps. 

\3 Evaluation of the Economic Impact of the Job Corps Program:  Third
Follow-up Report, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.  (Sept.  1982). 
Labor initiated another study of Job Corps in 1994 to analyze the net
impact of the program.  Initial results from this study, also
conducted by Mathematica, will be available in 1997. 

\4 Statement of Charles C.  Masten, Inspector General, U.S. 
Department of Labor, before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human
Resources (Oct.  4, 1994). 


   JOB CORPS' CLIENTELE AND
   SERVICES RESULT IN HIGHER COSTS
   THAN OTHER PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The Job Corps program is the most expensive employment and training
program that Labor administers, spending, on average, four times as
much per student as JTPA.  According to Labor's program year 1993
figures, the cost per Job Corps terminee averaged about $15,300.\5 In
contrast, the cost per youth terminee (aged 16-22) in JTPA averaged
about $3,700.\6 The

clientele targeted by Job Corps, as well as the comprehensive
services provided to the students, contributes to the high cost of
the program.  Job Corps seeks to enroll the most severely
disadvantaged youth who have multiple barriers to employment.  We
compared characteristics--at the time of program enrollment--of the
63,000 program year 1993 Job Corps terminees with the 172,000
comparable youth terminees from JTPA.\7
Using JTPA's definition of hard-to-serve clients, we compared those
characteristics that could be commonly applied to both
programs--being a school dropout, being deficient in basic skills
(reading and/or math skills below the eighth grade), receiving public
assistance, and having limited English proficiency.\8 We found that
the percentage of Job Corps students with a combination of two or
more of these employment barriers was much greater than it was for
JTPA participants--about 68 percent of all Job Corps terminees
nationwide compared with 39 percent of JTPA terminees\9 (see fig. 
3). 

   Figure 3:  Comparison of Job
   Corps and JTPA Participants
   With Multiple Employment
   Barriers

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Job Corps and JTPA data. 

To address the needs of students with multiple employment barriers,
Job Corps provides a comprehensive range of services.  Among these
services are those associated with the residential component and
instruction in social skills.  Residential living services include
meals, lodging, health and dental care, and transportation.  Social
skills instruction is a structured program that teaches 50 skills,
including working in a team, asking questions, dealing with anger,
learning self-control, handling embarrassment, and arriving on time
for appointments.  Taken together, expenditures for residential
living and social skills instruction accounted for about 44 percent
of the program year 1993 Job Corps operating costs nationally.  At
the six centers we visited, we obtained detailed information on
program year 1993 expenditures for various Job Corps activities and
found that about 45 percent of the funds was spent on residential
living and social skills instruction, whereas about 22 percent went
for basic education and vocational training and 21 percent for
administration (see fig.  4). 

   Figure 4:  Spending on Program
   Activities at the Six Centers

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  "Other" includes cash payments to students, outreach and
placement costs, and child care expenses. 

Source:  Job Corps centers' data. 


--------------------
\5 A terminee is a person who has left the program for any reason,
including dropping out for personal reasons, returning to school, or
getting a job.  Average cost is equal to the total program year 1993
appropriation divided by the total number of terminations. 

\6 Average cost is equal to the total program year 1993
appropriations for JTPA title II-C--the year-round training program
for youth--divided by the total number of terminations.  The average
length of stay in the title II-C program was about 8 months in
program year 1993. 

\7 For this comparison, we used JTPA out-of-school participants aged
16 to 24 who terminated from training programs funded under titles
II-A and II-C. 

\8 These characteristics are identified in the Job Training Reform
Amendments of 1992 and are also discussed in our report, Job Training
Partnership Act:  Services and Outcomes for Participants with
Differing Needs (GAO/HRD-89-52, June 9, 1989). 

\9 We recognize there are other characteristics considered to be
barriers to employment, such as being a criminal offender or having a
poor work history.  These other characteristics, however, were not
commonly defined or uniformly collected under both programs. 


   THE ONE-THIRD WHO COMPLETE
   VOCATIONAL TRAINING HAVE BETTER
   OUTCOMES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

While Job Corps reported nationally that in program year 1993 about
59 percent of the 63,000 students who left the program obtained
jobs,\10 only 36 percent of Job Corps students complete their
vocational training (see fig.  5).  At the six centers we visited, we
found that almost half the jobs obtained by students were low-skill
jobs not related to the training provided.  However, the students who
completed vocational training at these centers were 5 times more
likely to obtain a training-related job at wages 25 percent higher
than students who did not complete their training.  Yet, about 40
percent of program funds at the six centers was spent on students who
did not complete vocational training. 

   Figure 5:  Most Job Corps
   Students Leave Without
   Completing Vocational Training

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  "Other" includes those students who were in the program for at
least 60 days but never entered a vocational training program. 

Source:  Job Corps data. 

Using program year 1993 results, five of the six centers we visited
would not have met Labor's current standard for measuring vocational
completion--56 percent of vocational enrollees in the program for at
least 60 days should complete their vocational training.  At the 6
centers we visited, we analyzed the outcomes for the 2,449 students
who had been enrolled in Job Corps for at least 60 days and who also
had entered a vocational training program\11 and found that about 44
percent of the students completed their vocational training.  As
shown in figure 6, the proportion of these students who completed
vocational training programs ranged from about 18 percent at one
center to about 61 percent at another--overall, about 30 percent
completed vocational training. 

   Figure 6:  Proportion of
   Students Completing Their
   Vocational Training

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Job Corps centers' data. 

Overall, students who completed vocational training were 50 percent
more likely to obtain a job than those students who did not complete
it (76 percent versus 49 percent, respectively).  Furthermore, we
found that those students who completed their vocational training
were more likely to get a training related job than those who did not
complete it.\12 Comparing the types of jobs obtained by students who
did and did not complete their vocational training, we found that
students who had completed their training were five times more likely
to obtain a job that was training related.  At the six centers we
visited, about 37 percent of the students who had completed
vocational training obtained training-related jobs (see fig.  7).  In
contrast, only 7 percent of those students who did not complete their
training obtained training-related jobs.  For example,
training-related jobs for students who received health care training
included nurses' assistant, physical therapy aide, and home health
aide; for those who received training in the skilled construction
trades, training-related jobs included painter, carpenter, and
electrician.  Overall, about 14 percent of all program year 1993
terminees at the six centers received training-related jobs (this
consisted of 11.4 percent vocational completers and 2.8 percent
noncompleters). 

   Figure 7:  Program Outcomes at
   the Six Job Corps Centers

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Positive outcomes include obtaining a job, entering or
returning to school, or entering the military for those in the
program for 60 or more days. 

Source:  Job Corps centers' data. 

Furthermore, we found that the average wage paid to the students who
obtained these training-related jobs was 25 percent higher than the
average wage paid to students who did not obtain training-related
jobs--$6.60 versus $5.28 per hour.  About two-thirds of the jobs
obtained by students who did not complete their training were in
low-skill positions such as fast food worker, cashier, laborer,
assembler, and janitor. 

In order to get a better picture of how much the program spends in
relation to the outcomes attained, we analyzed program costs with
respect to the amount of time that students spent in the program at
the six centers.  We determined that the average cost per student day
was $65--ranging from $51 per day at one center to $119 at another
center.  We used this computation to calculate the cost of various
program outcomes at the six centers.  At these centers, vocational
completers, on average, remained in the program longer than those who
did not complete training (400 days versus 119 days, respectively). 
As a result, these centers spent considerably more on vocational
completers.  For example, the cost per student who completed
vocational training, on average, was $26,219 compared with $7,803 for
students who did not complete vocational training.  Yet, because less
than a third of the students completed vocational training, a large
proportion of the centers' program funds--approximately 40 percent,
or about $19 million--was spent on students who did not complete the
training.  As shown in figure 8, most centers spent at least 50
percent on students who completed their vocational training. 
However, one center spent only about 25 percent of its funds on
students who completed their vocational training.  Nationally, about
66 percent was spent on students who completed vocational training. 

   Figure 8:  Proportion of Funds
   Spent on Students Completing
   Their Vocational Training at
   the Six Centers

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Job Corps centers' data. 


--------------------
\10 Another 11 percent were enrolled in further education programs. 

\11 At the six centers we visited, about 27 percent of program year
1993 terminees dropped out of Job Corps before they had completed 60
days, and another 3 percent remained in the program for 60 days or
longer but never entered vocational training. 

\12 For each student who obtained a job at the six centers, we used
the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and other available information
to compare the training received with the job obtained. 


   EMPLOYERS SATISFIED WITH JOB
   CORPS STUDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

On the basis of our survey of employers of a random sample of Job
Corps students from the six centers, we found that employers were
generally satisfied with the basic work habits and technical
preparation of the Job Corps students they employed.  Although
students did not remain with these employers for very long (about
one-half worked 2 months or less), the majority of employers said
they would hire them again. 

Because neither Labor nor the Job Corps centers had information on
student job retention, we contacted the employers of a random sample
of 413 students who obtained jobs.  Our survey of employers was
intended to validate reported placement data, determine job retention
periods, and gauge employer satisfaction with students' basic work
habits and specific technical skills provided by the Job Corps
program (see app.  II for a detailed description of our methodology). 
Of the employers who responded, 79 percent rated the Job Corps
students' basic work habits average to excellent.  In addition, for
those employers reporting that the job matched the training, 85
percent believed the students were at least moderately prepared to
handle the technical requirements of the job. 

Students who obtained jobs upon leaving Job Corps tended not to
remain with those employers for very long.  Of those students for
which we obtained employment information, about 88 percent were no
longer working with their initial employer.\13 As shown in figure 9,
approximately 30 percent of the students who were no longer employed
in their initial job worked less than a month, while about 20 percent
worked 6 months or longer.  According to the employers, the
predominant reasons students were no longer employed were that they
quit (45 percent), were fired (22 percent), or were laid off (13
percent). 

   Figure 9:  Retention Period for
   Job Placements for Sample of
   Students From Six Centers
   Visited

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Job Corps centers' data. 


--------------------
\13 Because we interviewed employers and not students, we do not know
what happened to the students after they left their initial job. 


      REPORTED JOB PLACEMENTS
      INACCURATE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

Our employer survey gave us information that raises concerns about
the validity of Job Corps-reported job placement statistics.  We
tried to contact employers for 413 students who Labor reported as
having been hired.  In 34 instances, employers reported they had no
record of having hired the student.  Another 2 employers stated they
had hired a student, but the student never reported for work. 
Furthermore, another seven students were not employed, but were
placed with an employment agency or enrolled in JTPA training.  Thus,
about 10 percent of the reported job placements appeared to be
invalid. 

We were also unable to find the employer of record for almost 10
percent of our sample of students (an additional 39 students) using
both the telephone number listed in Labor's records and directory
assistance.  According to Labor, placement contractors verify 100
percent of the job placements, and Labor regional offices re-verify a
sample of at least 50 percent of reported job placements.\14

We provided Labor, at its request, detailed information on the 34
students that employers reported they had no record of hiring and the
39 whose employers we were unable to locate.  Labor responded that,
in the short time it had available, it was able to verify employment
for 44 of these 73 students.  However, our review of Labor's
documentation showed that it provided additional evidence to support
only 18 placements (12 of the 34 and 6 of the 39).  For many of the
remaining placements, Labor merely provided the original documents
that were on file when we initially attempted to verify employment. 
In other instances, the data differed from the original documents
with respect to the employer and employment dates of record, or
verification was made by the student or a relative and not an
employer.  Thus, we continue to question 15 percent of the placements
included in our sample.\15


--------------------
\14 As of July 1, 1995, Labor's regional office verification will be
replaced by a follow-up survey of job placements to determine
employment status 13 weeks after students leave the program. 

\15 The six centers reported that about 61 percent of the 2,449
students who were in the program for at least 60 days obtained jobs. 
However, on the basis of the results of our employer survey, a more
accurate job placement rate for these students would be 52 percent. 


   QUESTIONABLE BASIS FOR NATIONAL
   CONTRACTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

A substantial part of Job Corps' vocational training is provided by
national contractors on a sole source basis.  Our work directed at
this long-standing practice raises questions about whether the
program and its students are benefiting from this arrangement.  On
the basis of our review of Labor data, it is uncertain whether the
results achieved by the national contractors are much better than
those achieved by other Job Corps training providers. 

Labor has been awarding sole source contracts to nine national unions
and one building industry association for over a decade--15 years for
one contractor and over 25 years for several others.  Its
justification for making sole source awards, rather than using full
and open competition, is based on three broad factors:  (1) the
contractor's past relationship with Job Corps, that is, experience
with Labor's Employment and Training Administration in general and
Job Corps specifically, and its thorough knowledge of Job Corps
procedures and operation; (2) the contractor's organizational
structure, that is, a large nationwide membership related to a trade,
and its strong relationship with national and local apprenticeship
programs; and (3) the contractor's instructional capability, that is,
qualified and experienced instructors; ability to provide training
specifically developed for the learning level of Job Corps students;
and the ability to provide recognition of training as credit toward
meeting the requirements of a journeyman.  National contractor
expenditures during program year 1993 totaled $41 million, about
one-third of Job Corps' overall expenditures for vocational training. 
(See app.  IV for a listing of the national contractors, contract
awards, and the year of their initial award from Labor.)

While Labor officials stated that a primary justification for
awarding sole source national contracts is that the contractors'
maintain an extensive nationwide placement network, it is unclear
whether the national contractors are any more successful in placing
Job Corps students in jobs than are other training providers. 
According to Labor officials, because these organizations are
national in scope, they can identify job openings, regardless of
geographic location, and place Job Corps students in the positions. 
Thus, they are not constrained by the local job market in seeking
jobs for their students.  However, Labor's data show that,
programwide, very few of the job placements for those trained by
national training contractors in program year 1993 were attributed to
the national contractors.  According to Labor data, the largest
number of job placements (48 percent) were made by "self, family, or
friend," whereas only 3 percent were made by national contractors. 

The percentage of job placements by national contractors at the six
centers we visited was even smaller.  Labor data show that less than
1 percent of the placements were made by these contractors.  Labor
officials acknowledged that the data in their system do not
accurately reflect the extent to which national contractors place
students because their system was not designed to capture this
information.  On the other hand, they could not tell us how many
placements, in fact, were made by the contractors.  Thus, it is
unclear whether Job Corps benefits, as contended by Labor officials,
from the national contractors' nationwide placement network. 

Another reason Labor used in justifying national sole source
contracts is that the union contractors are considered to be an
effective means for getting Job Corps students into apprenticeship
programs.  Labor data show that 12 percent of the students in program
year 1993, who went through national contractor-provided vocational
training courses for at least 90 days were placed in apprenticeship
programs.  However, we have no basis to determine whether this is
acceptable, because Labor does not specify a target level for entry
into apprenticeships. 

Using Labor's national data, we found only moderate differences in
the performance of the national contractors as compared with other
Job Corps training providers.  In program year 1993, the national
contractors had a programwide job placement rate of 59 percent
compared with 54 percent for other Job Corps training providers, and
a training-related job match of 44 percent compared with 36 percent
for others.  Comparisons at the six centers we visited were similar,
with a job placement rate of 64 percent for national contractors
compared with 59 percent for other Job Corps training providers,
although the training-related job match was higher--42 percent
compared with 30 percent. 

The national contractors account for about one-third of Job Corps'
vocational training expenditures and the training they provide is
primarily in a declining occupational category--the construction
trades--which represents about 4 percent of the job market.  About 84
percent of national contractor training is in construction-related
occupations.  Similarly, Job Corps in general emphasizes training in
the construction trades.  Nationally, about one-third of the program
year 1993 terminees were enrolled in construction-related training. 
Similarly, at five of the six centers we visited, about one-third of
the terminees, collectively, were trained in one of the construction
trades.  These trades encompass a number of occupations, including
carpenter, cement mason, and bricklayer.  Our analysis of Bureau of
Labor Statistics data shows that over the past 8 years (1986-1993)
the proportion of construction-related jobs in the labor market has
declined by almost 10 percent. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

While Job Corps provides extensive services to a severely
disadvantaged population--a program design that inherently leads to
high costs--our evaluation has surfaced several issues that we
believe merit further investigation.  We noted that completing
vocational training appears to be very important to achieving a
successful program outcome, yet only a little over one-third of the
students complete their vocational courses.  As a result, a
substantial portion of Job Corps' funds (40 percent at the six sites
we visited) is being spent on noncompleters.  Turnover is high among
students in their initial job following Job Corps training.  The
overall implication of this is unknown; are students moving to other,
and perhaps better, jobs, or are they becoming unemployed?  We also
have serious concerns about the validity of reported job placements. 
These statistics may be overstated by 9 percentage points at the six
centers where we conducted our site work.  We will continue to pursue
these issues. 

Our work raises questions about Labor's use of national training
contractors to provide a substantial portion of its vocational
training.  A primary justification for using national contractors is
that they are better able to place students in jobs through their
nationwide placement network.  However, according to Labor data,
nearly half of all job placements were found by the student, family,
or friends.  The use of national contractors may have been prudent in
the past, but times have changed.  The shifting composition of the
labor market, particularly the decline in the construction trades;
the high proportion of vocational training funds allocated to
national contractor training; and Labor's lack of information to
support its justification for these national contracts, raises
questions about whether this is the most cost-effective approach to
vocational training. 


   RECOMMENDATION TO THE SECRETARY
   OF LABOR
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

To ensure that Job Corps vocational training programs are provided in
the most efficient and effective manner, we recommend that Labor
revisit whether the continued use of national training contractors is
cost effective. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

In comments on a draft of this report, Labor expressed concerns about
certain aspects of our report.  In response to our recommendation on
the use of national contractors, Labor agreed to review the practice
of contracting with national training providers on a sole source
basis.  The following summarizes its concerns and provides our
response.  (Labor's comments are printed in app.  V.)

Labor pointed out a number of items in our report that it believes
should be modified or clarified, and we have done so where
appropriate.  Specifically, we have modified our characterization of
program growth over the years, included information on a new study of
Job Corps' net impact, revised the percentage of vocational
completers nationwide, and revised our presentation of Job Corps
student job retention.  In addition, we have made a number of other
technical changes to our report to respond to Labor's comments. 

Labor expressed concern that we did not recognize other program
outcomes, such as general equivalency diploma (GED) attainment, and
based our conclusions only on vocational completion and job
placement.  GED attainment and gains in reading and math skills are
quantifiable program outcomes experienced by many Job Corps students. 
In our view, these outcomes are a means to an end--that is, providing
students with the basic educational skills needed in the world of
work--and not an end in and of themselves.  These other measures are
an adjunct to the principal measures of vocational completion and job
placement.  In fact, Labor's own literature--Job Corps in Brief,
Program Year 1993\16 --states that "Employment and enrollment in
full-time education or training are the only positive outcomes
recognized by Job Corps in its performance measurement systems."

Labor agreed that, as our report states, Job Corps is more costly
than other JTPA programs because of its residential nature and the
severely disadvantaged population targeted by the program.  However,
Job Corps suggested a number of alternative cost-effectiveness
comparisons, such as comparing Job Corps with community colleges. 
Our purpose in making the cost comparison with the JTPA title II-C
program was to provide context for Job Corps' high cost, not to show
cost effectiveness.  Therefore, we believe, and Labor agrees, that
using JTPA title II-C for cost comparison purposes is relevant.  As
for comparing Job Corps' completion rates and cost effectiveness with
other institutions like community colleges, this was not the purpose
of our report, and we would need to do additional work to try to make
a relevant comparison.  We do not believe that Labor has justified
the relevance of the comparisons made in its comments because the
populations served and institutions' purposes are vastly different
from the Job Corps.'

Labor also stated that our cost data, which showed that 40 percent of
expenditures at the six centers we visited was spent on
noncompleters, was not representative of Job Corps as a whole.  In
developing our data, we computed an average cost per student day
using the centers' program year 1993 total costs and total number of
paid days for all students.  We applied this in turn to the total
student days spent in the program by completers and noncompleters. 
We believe that our methodology results in a fair allocation of costs
to these student categories.  While acknowledging that our
computations may be true for the six centers, Labor claims that the
national average expenditures for noncompleters was 34 percent in
program year 1993.  Nonetheless, we believe that a substantial amount
of program resources is being spent on students who fail to complete
their vocational training programs.  Using Labor's estimate, Job
Corps spent about $328 million on noncompleters in program year 1993. 

Labor also took issue with our finding that Job Corps' reported job
placement information is often inaccurate.  Using information on
questionable job placements from our telephone survey, Labor
undertook an effort to verify these placements.  Our examination of
the documentation Labor used to support its verifications shows that
many of these placements remain questionable.  Of the 73 questionable
placements on which we provided information to Labor, it was able to
provide additional evidence supporting 18 placements.  We continue to
question the remaining placements because Labor provided no
additional information beyond that which was on file at the time of
our initial verification attempts.  In all, we continue to question
15 percent of the placements included in our sample. 

Labor also raised concerns that we used inappropriate data in
concluding that the use of national training contractors to provide
vocational training raises questions about whether this is a
cost-effective approach.  Labor states that the 3-percent placement
rate we cite is based on data not designed for this purpose.  Our
report acknowledges Labor's assertion that the data do not accurately
reflect the extent to which national contractors place students. 
However, of greater importance is Labor's acknowledgement that it
does not know how many placements were made by the contractors, a
primary justification for the continuation of 25 years of sole source
contracts.  As a result, Labor is paying a substantial portion of its
vocational training funds to national contractors but is unable to
assess how effective they are in placing students in jobs. 
Therefore, we believe that our conclusion and related recommendation
remain valid.  In addition, Labor has agreed to review its practice
of contracting with the national training providers on a sole source
basis. 

Labor also took exception with our discussion of the Job Corps
program's emphasis on training in the construction trades.  While
acknowledging that the construction trades have declined as a
proportion of the total job market, Labor stated that they have
increased in the total number of jobs, about 80,000 jobs over the
8-year period 1986-93.  Labor also pointed out advantages associated
with employment in the construction trades and that it may be the
most appropriate training for many students.  We do not disagree with
Labor's assertion that training in the construction trades may be
beneficial for some students.  Nonetheless, we believe that a valid
question remains about whether it is appropriate for Job Corps to
spend over one-third of its vocational training funds on an
occupational category that makes up about 4 percent of the labor
market. 


--------------------
\16 Department of Labor, 1994. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor; the
Director, Office of Management and Budget; relevant congressional
committees; and other interested parties. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report,
please call Sigurd R.  Nilsen at (202) 512-7003 or Wayne J.  Sylvia
at (617) 565-7492.  Other major contributors include Thomas N. 
Medvetz, Dianne Murphy, Jeremiah F.  Donoghue, Betty S.  Clark, and
Marquita Harris. 

Sincerely yours,

Linda G.  Morra
Director, Education and
 Employment Issues


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

We designed our study to collect information on the characteristics
of Job Corps students, the services they were provided, and the
outcomes they achieved, including employers' satisfaction with the
students hired.  We also obtained information on program year 1993
expenditures and the use of national contractors to provide
vocational training.  In doing our work, we interviewed Job Corps
officials at the national and regional levels and conducted site
visits at six judgmentally selected Job Corps facilities. 

We augmented the information collected during the site visits with
data from Labor's Student Pay, Allotment and Management Information
System (SPAMIS), a database containing nationwide Job Corps data on
all program year 1993 terminees.  We also obtained selected data on
participants aged 16 to 24 included in Labor's Standardized Program
Information Report (SPIR), a database containing information on
program year 1993 JTPA terminees from titles II-A and II-C (programs
for economically disadvantaged adults and youth, respectively).  This
additional data allowed us to compare, nationwide, the
characteristics of terminees from Job Corps and JTPA. 

We also administered a telephone survey to employers of a random
sample of Job Corps students who obtained jobs within 6 months after
leaving the program.  The methodology employed in this survey is
discussed in greater detail in appendix II. 


   SITE VISITS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

We conducted site visits at six Job Corps centers during the period
December 1994 through April 1995.  We selected the sites judgmentally
to provide a mixture of Job Corps centers that were (1) located in
different Job Corps regions (to provide geographic dispersion); (2)
rated among high and low performers according to the Job Corps
ranking of performance indicators; (3) operated as civilian
conservation centers (CCC) and contractor-operated centers; and (4)
operated by different center contractors.  Table I.1 lists the
centers visited and the characteristics of each. 



                         Table I.1
          
            Job Corps Centers Selected for Site
                           Visits

                    Rank\a  Studen      1993
                      (out       t    center
          Location      of  capaci  operatin  Contractor/
Center    /region     109)      ty   g costs  CCC
--------  --------  ------  ------  --------  ------------
Great     Mammoth      107     214  $4,035,1  CCC--Dept.
Onyx      Cave,                           13  of Interior,
Civilian  KY/                                 National
Conserva  Region 4                            Park Service
tion
Center

Guthrie   Guthrie,      92     630  8,137,07  Contractor-
Job       OK/                              4  -Wackenhut
Corps     Region 6                            Educational
Center                                        Services,
                                              Inc.

San Jose  San            4     440  8,369,26  Contractor-
Job       Jose,                            6  -Career
Corps     CA/                                 Systems
Center    Region 9                            Development
                                              Corp.

Westover  Chicopee      62     555  10,351,2  Contractor-
Job       , MA/                           00  -EC Corp.
Corps     Region 1
Center

Wolf      Glide,        17     231  5,020,10  CCC--Dept.
Creek     OR/                              5  of
Civilian  Region                              Agriculture,
Conserva  10                                  Forest
tion                                          Service
Center

Woodland  Laurel,       18     300  5,761,55  Contractor-
Job       MD/                              3  -Adams and
Corps     Region 3                            Associates
Center
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Labor ranking for the 4-month period ending October 31, 1994. 

During these site visits, we interviewed center directors on various
aspects of center operations, toured the facilities, and reviewed
center records.  Using the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and
other guidance, we analyzed the jobs students obtained relative to
the training received to determine whether these jobs were training
related.  We also compiled detailed cost information using individual
center financial records to determine the true nature of
expenditures--how much was being spent for administration, basic
education and vocational training, social skills instruction,
residential living, and other support services. 


   NATIONAL AND REGIONAL JOB CORPS
   OFFICES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

We interviewed Labor officials at both the national and regional
offices to obtain an overview of Job Corps operations and budgeting
procedures, including how funds are tracked at the national level;
reporting requirements for each level of oversight; and methods used
for cost allocations.  We also collected information on the
contracting process, including information on the national training
contracts; contracts for center operators; and, to some extent, those
awarded for outreach, screening, and placement services. 


   DATA ANALYSIS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

We analyzed Labor data to determine whether Job Corps was serving
severely disadvantaged youth--its intended population.  We used
individual-level data and performed univariate and cross-tabulation
descriptive procedures to compare selected characteristics of about
63,000 Job Corps terminees with those of about 172,000 JTPA
out-of-school terminees aged 16 to 24 from titles II-A and II-C for
program year 1993.  Using SPAMIS and SPIR databases, we compared
those characteristics considered to be barriers to employment that
were commonly defined and uniformly collected by both Job Corps and
JTPA.  These characteristics included (1) being a school dropout, (2)
having basic skills deficiencies (that is, reading or math skills
below eighth grade), (3) receiving public assistance, and (4) having
limited English proficiency. 


GAO'S EMPLOYER SURVEY
========================================================== Appendix II

To provide information on employers' perceptions about the training
provided by the six Job Corps Centers we visited, we surveyed by
telephone the employers of a random sample of students from each of
these six centers.  Sampled students are representative of the
population of students at these six centers who had terminated from
the program during program year 1993 with at least 60 paid days at
the center, and who obtained employment within 6 months after leaving
the program.  The final sample contained 413 cases representing a
population of 1,524 students. 

To identify this population, we used data files provided to us by the
six centers.  We verified and, where appropriate, augmented the data
with SPAMIS data files from the Department of Labor.  Using the
telephone numbers provided in the data files, we telephoned the
employers of the sampled students during the month of May 1995.  We
asked employers about students' job tenure and about their
satisfaction with students' work habits and specific technical
skills. 

We directed the survey to those officials most knowledgeable about
employment histories and placement information.  Our analyses are
based on responses from employers of 92 percent of the sampled
students.  Findings from the survey were statistically adjusted
(weighted) to produce estimates that are representative for each of
the six sites and for the six sites combined.  All data are
self-reported, and we did not independently verify their accuracy. 


   SAMPLING STRATEGY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

We used the data provided by the six centers and augmented it, as
necessary, with the SPAMIS database to develop a data file.  The file
contained all required information for each member of our target
population--Job Corps program terminees from program year 1993 who
had been in Job Corps for at least 60 paid days and who had received
jobs within 6 months of leaving the program.  Using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences sampling routine, we selected a
simple random sample for each site.  The population for the 6 sites
ranged from 96 to 425 students, for a total of 1,524.  The sample for
the 6 sites ranged from 49 to 81 students, for a total of 413.  Table
II.1 contains population and sample sizes by site. 



                          Table II.1
           
             Population and Sample Sizes by Site

                                              Popula
                                                tion  Sample
Site                                            size    size
--------------------------------------------  ------  ------
Guthrie                                          425      81
Westover                                         311      76
Wolf Creek                                       197      67
San Jose                                         318      76
Woodland                                         177      64
Great Onyx                                        96      49
============================================================
Total                                          1,524     413
------------------------------------------------------------

   SURVEY INSTRUMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

During our survey, we asked employers to verify placement
information, including job titles and hiring dates; provide corrected
information, when appropriate; and provide job tenure information. 
We also asked employers to assess students' work habits, technical
skills, and whether the observed length of stay was average for that
job.  Interviewers used an electronic form of the survey, prepared
using Questionnaire Programming Language, and entered the data
directly into a computer file.  Interviewer files were collated and
processed on a site-by-site basis, base weights and nonresponse
weights were calculated and attached to the file, the data from the
six sites were merged, and all identifying data were removed.  The
responses contained in this report represent combined weighted
responses for all six sites. 


   SURVEY RESPONSE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

We telephoned the employers of the 413 originally sampled students
during the month of May 1995.  Of the 413 students in the original
sample, 55 were found to be ineligible for our survey.  We considered
a student ineligible if his or her employer's phone number was
incorrect or disconnected and we could not obtain a new one, or if
the employer did not have records available to verify the student's
employment.  Subtracting these ineligible students from our original
sample yielded an adjusted sample of 358 students. 

At least three attempts were made to contact the employer of each of
the 358 students.  After repeated calls, we were unable to reach
and/or interview the employers of 28 of these students.  These 28
cases were classified as nonrespondents.  We were able to reach and
complete interviews with the employers of the other 330 sampled,
eligible students.  Dividing the number of students with whom we
completed interviews by the adjusted sample yields a response rate of
92 percent. 

The survey questions about employer satisfaction with students proved
to be very sensitive.  In about 46 percent of the 330 interviews,
employers declined to answer these particular questions about the
students because of company policies or concerns about protecting the
privacy of the student or the employer. 


   SAMPLING ERRORS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4

All sample surveys are subject to sampling error, that is, the extent
to which the results differ from what would be obtained if the whole
population had been administered the questionnaire.  Since the whole
population does not receive the questionnaire in a sample survey, the
true size of the sampling error cannot be known.  However, it can be
estimated from the responses to the survey.  The estimate of sampling
error depends largely on the number of respondents and the amount of
variability in the data. 

For this report, site-level estimates are not provided, and therefore
sampling errors at the site level were not calculated.  For the
estimates for the six centers combined, the sampling error ranges
between +/- 3 and +/- 9 percentage points at the 95- percent
confidence level. 


   NONSAMPLING ERRORS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:5

In addition to sampling errors, surveys are also subject to other
types of systematic error or bias that can affect results.  This is
especially true when respondents are asked to answer questions of a
sensitive nature or to provide factual information that is inherently
subject to error.  Lack of understanding of the questions can also
result in systematic error.  Bias can affect both response rates and
the way that respondents answer particular questions.  It is not
possible to assess the magnitude of the effect of biases, if any, on
the results of a survey.  Rather, possibilities of bias can only be
identified and accounted for when interpreting results.  This survey
had two major possible sources of bias:  (1) sensitivity of certain
issues and questions and (2) bias associated with all telephone
surveys due to inability to reach the sampling target. 

The employer ratings of employees' workplace behaviors requested by
our survey are sensitive to several factors.  For example, the
particular rating provided by an employer may have been influenced by
his/her ability to recall the specific habits and abilities of a
particular individual in response to our questions.  It also may have
been affected by his/her overall like or dislike of the individual
irrespective of the particular behaviors in question. 

Furthermore, some employers declined to provide any information about
satisfaction with employees' performance and technical skills.  This
reluctance may have had any number of unknown causes, including an
unwillingness to report poor performance or an internal policy
prohibiting the disclosure of any performance information. 

A second kind of bias may result from our inability to reach every
sampled employer because of their inaccessibility by telephone. 
Certain types of businesses could not be reached because of various
problems including the presence of answering machines or the
inaccuracy of information contained in the data files.  To the extent
that businesses using answering machines are different than those
that do not, there could be bias in the type of employer we were able
to reach.  Additionally, while we made every attempt to ascertain
correct information, in some cases we were unable to do so.  To the
extent that errors in the data file provided by Job Corps are not
random, bias of an unknown direction or magnitude could be present in
the nature of the responses we received. 


JOB CORPS CENTERS, BY DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR REGION
========================================================= Appendix III

                                    Capacity   1993 center
                                     (no. of     operating
Center            Location         students)         costs
----------------  --------------  ----------  ------------
Labor Region 1
----------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut       New Haven, CT          200       None in
                                              program year
                                                    1993\a
Grafton           North Grafton,         300    $5,878,575
                   MA
Northlands        Vergennes, VT          280     5,317,520
Penobscot         Bangor, ME             335     5,538,357
Westover          Chicopee, MA           555    10,351,200

Labor Region 2
----------------------------------------------------------
Arecibo           Garrochales,           200     2,444,710
                   PR
Barranquitas      Barranquitas,          200     2,448,890
                   PR
Cassadaga         Cassadaga, NY          240     4,494,029
Delaware Valley   Calicoon, NY           400     6,551,680
Edison            Edison, NJ             530    10,458,982
Gateway           Brooklyn, NY           224     4,855,173
Glenmont          Glenmont, NY           340     5,961,516
Iroquois          Medina, NY             240     3,146,621
Oneonta           Oneonta, NY            370     7,185,715
Ramey             Ramey, PR              335     3,886,715
South Bronx       Bronx, NY              250     4,994,719

Labor Region 3
----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Ridge        Marion, VA             200     3,234,731
Charleston        Charleston, WV         430     7,454,286
Flatwoods         Coeburn, VA            224     4,533,948
Harpers Ferry     Harpers Ferry,         210     4,168,946
                   WV
Keystone          Drums, PA              700    12,029,134
Old Dominion      Monroe, VA             350     6,487,000
Philadelphia      Philadelphia,          225     2,991,100
                   PA
Pittsburgh        Pittsburgh, PA         700    10,078,168
Potomac           Washington, DC         490    11,071,835
Red Rock          Lopez, PA              318     6,187,535
Woodland          Laurel, MD             300     5,761,553
Woodstock         Randallstown,          505     9,715,920
                   MD

Labor Region 4
----------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta           Atlanta, GA            515     8,316,401
Bamberg           Bamberg, SC            220     3,878,828
Batesville        Batesville, MS         300     5,402,274
Brunswick         Brunswick, GA          400     6,753,099
Earle C.          Morganfield,         2,234    31,117,772
 Clements          KY
Frenchburg        Mariba, KY             168     3,443,618
Gadsden           Gadsden, AL            286     4,225,774
Gainesville       Gainesville,           350     6,137,251
                   FL
Great Onyx        Mammoth Cave,          214     4,035,113
                   KY
Gulfport          Gulfport, MS           280     4,292,821
Jacksonville      Jacksonville,          250     4,372,323
                   FL
Jacobs Creek      Bristol, TN            224     5,533,056
Lyndon B.         Franklin, NC           205     3,919,404
 Johnson
Kittrell          Kittrell, NC           350     5,715,127
Knoxville         Knoxville, TN          378     5,506,012
Miami             Miami, FL              300     3,759,092
Mississippi       Crystal                405     5,914,168
                   Springs, MS
Oconaluftee       Cherokee, NC           210     3,439,312
Carl C. Perkins   Prestonsburg,          245     3,799,539
                   KY
Pine Knot         Pine Knot, KY          224     4,115,302
Schenck           Pisgah Forest,         224     4,191,612
                   NC
Turner            Albany, GA           1,030    16,067,348
Tuskegee          Tuskegee               240     3,951,455
                   Institute, AL
Whitney Young     Simpsonville,          400     4,602,027
                   KY

Labor Region 5
----------------------------------------------------------
Atterbury/        Endinburg, IN          750    11,661,160
 Independence
Blackwell         Laona, WI              205     4,162,487
Cincinnati        Cincinnati, OH         225     4,739,297
Cleveland         Cleveland, OH          470     8,692,576
Dayton, OH        Dayton, OH             300     5,388,925
Detroit, MI       Detroit, MI            275     4,498,397
Golconda          Golconda, IL           230     4,767,518
Grand Rapids      Grand Rapids,          360     6,225,487
                   MI
Hubert H.         St. Paul, MN           290     5,314,081
 Humphrey
Joliet            Joliet, IL             360     6,332,053

Labor Region 6
----------------------------------------------------------
Albuquerque       Albuquerque,           415     5,711,572
                   NM
D. L. Carrasco    El Paso, TX            415     5,976,726
Cass              Ozark, AR              224     3,915,388
Gary              San Marcos, TX       2,200    30,705,260
Guthrie           Guthrie, OK            630     8,137,074
Laredo            Laredo, TX             251     3,096,931
Little Rock       Little Rock,           200     3,569,860
                   AR
McKinney          McKinney, TX           650     9,284,753
New Orleans       New Orleans,           290     2,608,022
                   LA
Ouachita          Royal, AR              187     3,684,104
Roswell           Roswell, NM            225     4,325,266
Shreveport        Shreveport, LA         350     5,139,171
Talking Leaves    Tahlequah, OK          250     4,089,941
Treasure Lake     Indiahoma, OK          236     3,657,108
Tulsa             Tulsa, OK              300     5,017,272

Labor Region 7
----------------------------------------------------------
Denison           Denison, IA            300     5,737,025
Excelsior         Excelsior              495     9,683,053
 Springs           Springs, MO
Mingo             Puxico, MO             224     4,095,359
Pine Ridge        Chadron, NB            224     4,401,219
St. Louis         St. Louis, MO          604    11,225,637
Flint Hills       Manhattan, KS          250     4,649,908

Labor Region 8
----------------------------------------------------------
Anaconda          Anaconda, MT           224     4,666,551
Boxelder          Nemo, SD               208     4,061,719
Clearfield        Clearfield, UT       1,320    24,738,524
Quentin Burdick   Minot, ND              250      71,131\b
Collbran          Collbran, CO           200     3,762,499
Kicking Horse     Ronan, MT              224     3,609,301
Trapper Creek     Darby, MT              224     4,155,049
Weber Basin       Ogden, UT              224     3,847,838

Labor Region 9
----------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii            Honolulu, HI           352     7,352,534
Inland Empire     San                    310     6,599,755
                   Bernardino,
                   CA
Los Angeles       Los Angeles,           735    13,204,607
                   CA
Phoenix           Phoenix, AZ            415     6,466,877
Sacramento        Sacramento, CA         412     7,581,920
San Diego         Imperial               650    11,359,422
                   Beach, CA
San Jose          San Jose, CA           440     8,369,266
Sierra Nevada     Reno, NV               600    12,278,161
Treasure Island   San Francisco,         120     2,218,078
                   CA
Fred G. Acosta    Tucson, AZ             270     4,957,787
Labor Region 10
Alaska            Palmer, AK             250     3,172,897
Angell            Yachats, OR            216     4,244,143
Cascades          Sedro Woolley,         327     7,001,311
                   WA
Columbia Basin    Moses Lake, WA         250     4,255,623
Curlew            Wauconda, WA           198     4,285,921
Fort Simcoe       White Swan, WA         224     4,665,485
Marsing           Marsing, ID            210     3,668,870
Springdale/       Troutdale,             725    11,557,880
 Tongue Point/     Astoria,
 PIVOT             Portland, OR
Timber Lake       Estacada, OR           234     4,816,403
Wolf Creek        Glide, OR              231     5,020,105
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Center established in 1993. 

\b A newly established center, in operation for only 6 weeks in
program year 1993. 


NATIONAL TRAINING CONTRACTORS
========================================================== Appendix IV

                                     Award\a       Year of
                                    (million       initial
Contractor                                s)         award
----------------------------------  --------  ------------
AFL/CIO Appalachian Council            $ 3.3          1974
Home Builders Institute                 13.2          1974
International Brotherhood of             3.6          1969
 Painters
 and Allied Trades
International Masonry Institute          2.7          1971
International Union of Operating         2.1          1966
 Engineers
National Maritime Union of America       2.7          1979
National Plasterers and Cement           4.5          1970
 Masons
 International Association
Transportation-Communication             3.9          1972
 International
 Union
United Brotherhood of Carpenters         4.9          1968
 and
 Joiners of America
United Auto Workers                      2.1          1978
==========================================================
Total                                  $43.0
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Award amount is for the last annual contract period. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR
========================================================== Appendix IV



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)

