Job Corps: Where Participants Are Recruited, Trained, and Placed in Jobs
(Letter Report, 07/17/96, GAO/HEHS-96-140).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the: (1) locations of
Job Corps centers and their capacity by state; (2) extent to which Job
Corps participants are trained and placed in jobs in the state in which
they reside; and (3) reasons why participants are sent to centers
outside their state of residence.

GAO found that: (1) Job Corps program capacity differs among states
because the number of centers in each state differs and the size of
individual centers within each state differs; (2) in 1994, 41 percent of
the 64,000 participants who lived in states with Job Corps centers were
assigned to centers outside their home state; (3) the extent of
out-of-state assignments varied among states; (4) participants assigned
to centers outside their home state were sent to centers that were, on
average, over 4 times as distant as the closest in-state center; (5) in
many states, Job Corps residents were sent to out-of-state centers,
while nonresidents were enrolled at in-state centers; (6) the number of
nonresidents varied among individual Job Corps centers during 1994; (7)
regardless of where participants were assigned, those who found jobs
usually did so in their home state; (8) participants were assigned to
centers outside their home state to fully utilize centers or to satisfy
particular vocational preferences; (9) the recent trend has been to
assign program residents to in-state centers; (10) in 1994, most
in-state Job Corps centers had sufficient capacity to accommodate almost
all in-state Job Corps participants; and (11) the nine new centers will
provide some needed additional capacity in some states and increase
capacity in three states to about twice the in-state demand.

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

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-96-140
     TITLE:  Job Corps: Where Participants Are Recruited, Trained, and 
             Placed in Jobs
      DATE:  07/17/96
   SUBJECT:  Employment or training programs
             Vocational education
             Vocational schools
             Disadvantaged persons
             State-administered programs
             Federal aid to states
             Aid for training or employment
             Youth employment programs
IDENTIFIER:  DOL Job Corps Program
             DOL Student Pay and Allowance Management Information System
             
******************************************************************
** 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.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


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


Report to Congressional Requesters

July 1996

JOB CORPS - WHERE PARTICIPANTS ARE
RECRUITED, TRAINED, AND PLACED IN
JOBS

GAO/HEHS-96-140

Job Corps Program

(205304)


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

  SPAMIS - Student Pay, Allotment and Management Information System
  ABC - Test

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


B-271947

July 17, 1996

The Honorable William F.  Goodling
Chairman, Committee on Economic
 and Educational Opportunities
House of Representatives

The Honorable Christopher Shays
Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources
 and Intergovernmental Relations
Committee on Government Reform
 and Oversight
House of Representatives

Job Corps is a national employment training program administered by
the Department of Labor that provides severely disadvantaged youth
with a comprehensive array of services, generally in a residential
setting.  Labor receives about $1 billion a year to serve about
66,000 Job Corps participants, and, through nine regional offices,\1

operates 112 Job Corps centers that it has established throughout the
nation--including centers in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico.\2 Job Corps is one of about 163 programs or funding
streams that make up the nation's federally funded workforce
development system.  The Congress is now deciding how best to
streamline this fragmented system and how Job Corps would best
operate within a reformed workforce development structure.\3 In that
regard, you asked us to provide information on whether Job Corps
participants are assigned to the closest center.  Specifically, you
asked for information on (1) the locations of Job Corps centers and
their capacity, by state; (2) the extent to which participants are
trained and placed in jobs in the state in which they reside; and (3)
the reasons why participants may be sent to centers outside their
state of residence. 

In carrying out our work, we performed analyses of the Job Corps
program's Student Pay, Allotment and Management Information System
(SPAMIS) data for program years\4 1993 and 1994 (the most current
data available).  This data system contains comprehensive information
on each Job Corps participant who left the program during program
years 1993 and 1994, including personal and demographic data; the
center to which they were assigned and the courses they attended; the
date when they left the program; and the job they obtained, if any. 
Our analyses included a comparison of the program's in-state capacity
with in-state demand for services, using the number of program
participants as a measure of demand.  We also conducted a telephone
survey with the directors from the program's nine regional offices
and several outreach/screening contractors to obtain information on
the factors influencing decisions to assign participants to centers
outside the participants' state of residence.  We did our work
between October 1995 and May 1996 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.  (App.  I contains a more
detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.)


--------------------
\1 Although Labor operates 10 regional offices, the Job Corps program
in regions VII and VIII is overseen by one regional director. 

\2 Hereafter, the use of the term "states" will refer, collectively,
to the states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.  States
without Job Corps centers in 1995 included Delaware, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Wyoming, and Connecticut.  Connecticut opened a center
in May 1996. 

\3 See Multiple Employment Training Programs:  Major Overhaul Needed
to Reduce Costs, Streamline the Bureaucracy, and Improve Results
(GAO/T-HEHS-95-53, Jan.  10, 1995). 

\4 A program year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the
following year.  Program years are designated by the year in which
they start; thus, program year 1994 began July 1, 1994, and ended
June 30, 1995. 


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

While 46 states have at least one center, Job Corps program capacity
differs among the states because the number and size of Job Corps
centers vary from state to state.  For example, 19 states have one
Job Corps center whereas 4 states have six or more centers. 
Furthermore, Job Corps program capacity in a state is not related to
the number of state residents enrolled in Job Corps, and participants
are not necessarily trained or assigned to a center in their home
state. 

Overall, we found that Job Corps had the capacity to serve 81 percent
of program participants in their home states--52,000 of 64,000
participants from states with Job Corps centers could have been
assigned to a center in their state of residence.  About 59 percent
of participants were assigned to centers in their home state;\5 the
remaining participants were sent to centers outside their home state
and traveled an average of over 4 times as far as they would have if
they had been assigned to the closest center in their state of
residence.  Regardless of where they were trained, however, about 83
percent of those participants who got jobs were employed in their
home state. 

Program officials told us that the predominant reasons participants
were sent out of state were to (1) fully use Job Corps centers and
(2) satisfy participants' preference to be assigned to a specific
center.  Officials also cited participants' preference for a specific
vocational offering as important.  While we were unable to determine
if specific vocational training slots were available at the closest
center when participants were enrolled, our analysis showed that over
two-thirds of the participants assigned to centers in other states
were either enrolled in vocational training courses commonly offered
or never enrolled in vocational training at all. 

Job Corps had sufficient capacity in 27 of the states to serve
essentially all participants from those states in program year 1994. 
However, the program lacked the capacity to serve about 11,000
participants residing in 20 other states and another 1,400
participants residing in the 5 states that did not have a Job Corps
center in program year 1994.  Plans to add nine centers in the next 2
years and the 1996 opening of the Connecticut center are expected to
partially address this shortfall, adding space for about 4,000
participants in those states with insufficient capacity and for about
300 in Connecticut. 


--------------------
\5 All analyses throughout the report are based on program year 1994
data.  We performed the same analyses using program year 1993 data
and obtained consistent results.  See appendix II for information on
program years 1993 and 1994. 


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

Job Corps was established as a national employment and training
program in 1964 to provide severely disadvantaged youth with a wide
range of services, including basic/remedial education, vocational
training, and social skills instruction, usually at residential
facilities.  It remains one of the few federally run programs, unlike
many other employment training programs\6 that are federally funded
but are operated by state or local governments.  Job Corps centers
are operated by public or private organizations under contract with
Labor. 

Recent legislative proposals to consolidate much of the nation's job
training system into block grants to the states has produced debate
on the relationship between Job Corps and the states, including
whether responsibility for Job Corps should be delegated to the
states.  A 1995 Senate-passed bill retained Job Corps as a separate
federally administered program;\7 a 1995 House-passed bill was silent
about the Job Corps' future as a separate entity.\8 A conference
committee is currently attempting to resolve the differences between
the two bills.  The Senate bill proposes several changes to better
integrate Job Corps with state and local workforce development
initiatives, including requiring center operators to submit operating
plans to Labor, through their state governors; requiring center
operators to give nearby communities advance notice of any center
changes that could affect them; and permitting the governor to
recommend individuals to serve on panels to select center operators. 
Labor officials stated that the program is already playing a
proactive role in ensuring that the National Job Corps program works
more closely with state and local employment, education, and training
programs. 

According to Job Corps officials, the program has received funding to
open nine additional centers--five in program year 1996 and four in
program year 1997--all of which will be located in states with
existing centers. 

Job Corps' nine regional directors are responsible for the day-to-day
administration of the program at the centers located within their
geographic boundaries.  Included among their responsibilities are the
recruitment of youth for program participation and the assignment of
enrollees to one of the program centers.  Recruitment is typically
carried out by private contractors, the centers, or state employment
services under contract with the regional directors.  The Job Corps
legislation provides some broad guidance with respect to assigning
enrollees to centers.  It states that participants are to be assigned
to the center closest to their residence, except for good cause. 
Exceptions can include avoiding undue delay in assigning participants
to a center, meeting educational or training needs, or ensuring
efficiency and economy in the operation of the program. 

The program currently enrolls participants aged 16 to 24 who are
severely disadvantaged, in need of additional education or training,
and living in a disruptive environment.  Our June 1995 report\9
contained an analysis of characteristics of those terminating from
Job Corps in program year 1993 showing that over two-thirds of the
program's participants faced multiple barriers to employment.\10
Enrollments are voluntary, and training programs are open entry, open
exit, and self-paced, allowing participants to enroll throughout the
year and to progress at their own pace.  On average, participants
spend about 8 months in the program but can stay up to 2 years. 

In addition to basic education and vocational training courses, each
of the centers provides participants with a range of services
including counseling, health care (including dental), room and board,
and recreational activities.  Skills training is offered in a variety
of vocational areas, including business occupations, automotive
repair, construction trades, and health occupations.  These courses
are taught by center staff, private contractors, or instructors
provided under contracts with national labor and business
organizations.  In addition, Job Corps offers, at a limited number of
centers, advanced training in various occupations including food
service, clerical, and construction trades.  This training is
designed to provide additional instruction to participants from
centers across the nation who have demonstrated the ability to
perform at a higher skill level. 

One feature that makes Job Corps different from other youth training
programs is its residential component.\11 About 90 percent of the
participants enrolled each year live at the centers, allowing
services to be provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  The premise
for boarding participants 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. 

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 earning a high school diploma and
gaining reading or math skills.  However, the primary outcome for Job
Corps participants is employment; about 64 percent of those leaving
the program get jobs. 


--------------------
\6 Examples of such programs include titles IIB and IIC youth
training programs under the Job Training Partnership Act (P.L. 
97-300), which, although established as federal programs, are run by
state and local agencies. 

\7 The Workforce Development Act of 1995 (S.  143, 104th Cong., 1st
sess.). 

\8 The Workforce Development Act of 1995 (H.R.  1617, 104th Cong.,
1st sess.). 

\9 Job Corps:  High Costs and Mixed Results Raise Questions About
Program's Effectiveness (GAO/HEHS-95-180, June 30, 1995). 

\10 The barriers included 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. 

\11 See Job Corps:  Comparison of Federal Program With State Youth
Training Initiatives (GAO/HEHS-96-92, Mar.  28, 1996). 


   NUMBER AND SIZE OF JOB CORPS
   CENTERS DETERMINE STATE
   CAPACITY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Job Corps program capacity differs widely among the states because
the number of centers in each state differs, and the size of
individual centers within the states varies substantially.  Job Corps
centers are located in 46 states and the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico (see fig.  1).  Among states with centers, the number
ranges from one center in each of 19 states; to six centers each in
California, Kentucky, and Oregon; to seven in New York State. 

   Figure 1:  Current and Planned
   Distribution of Job Corps
   Centers by Labor Regions and by
   States

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  App.  III lists the states in each region. 

In-state capacity differs according to the number of centers in each
state, the size of individual centers, and the average time
participants spend in the program.  For example, Kentucky's centers
can serve 6,373 participants annually, nearly double the number that
can be served by centers in either California (3,477) or New York
(3,252); Idaho has only one center and a capacity of about 200.  (See
app.  IV for a listing of the capacity within each state with a Job
Corps center.) As shown in figure 2, Job Corps centers in 9 states
had the capacity to serve over 2,000 Job Corps participants annually,
whereas centers in 10 states could serve fewer than 500 participants
annually. 

   Figure 2:  State Job Corps
   Program Capacity, Program Year
   1994

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


   JOB CORPS PARTICIPANTS WERE
   ASSIGNED TO OUT-OF-STATE
   CENTERS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Nationwide, 41 percent of the approximately 64,000 program year 1994
Job Corps participants (about 44 percent in program year 1993) who
lived in states with Job Corps centers were assigned to centers
outside their home state.  Openings at centers located in their
states of residence were often filled by participants from other
states.  Those participants assigned out of state travel greater
distances than those who are assigned to an in-state center.  Yet,
even when assigned out of state, participants tend to stay within the
Labor region in which they reside.  Regardless of where they are
assigned, participants tend to be employed in their state of
residence. 


      EXTENT OF OUT-OF-STATE
      ASSIGNMENTS DIFFERED AMONG
      STATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Considerable variation existed among the states in the extent to
which Job Corps participants were assigned to out-of-state centers
(see fig.  3).  In program year 1994, the majority of Job Corps
participants from 15 states were assigned to centers outside their
home state.  For example, more than three-quarters of the Job Corps
participants from Colorado, Illinois, South Carolina, and Wisconsin
were assigned to centers in states other than the one in which they
lived.  On the other hand, less than a quarter of the youths in 16
states were assigned to out-of-state Job Corps centers.  For example,
less than 15 percent of the Job Corps participants from Minnesota,
Nevada, New Jersey, and New York were assigned to centers outside
their home state.  (App.  V lists the states included in each of the
percentage groupings shown in fig.  3.)

   Figure 3:  State Residents
   Assigned to Out-of-State
   Centers, Program Year 1994

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

While substantial numbers of participants are assigned to
out-of-state centers, the vast majority of all participants are
assigned to centers within the Job Corps regions in which they
reside.  Nearly 95 percent of program year 1994 participants (92
percent in program year 1993) were assigned to a Job Corps center
that was located in the same region as their residence.  In 7 of
Labor's 10 regions, over 90 percent of Job Corps program participants
were residents of the regions in which they were assigned, and in the
remaining 3 regions, over 80 percent were regional residents.  A
portion of the remaining 5 percent who were transferred outside their
region were assigned under agreements between regional directors to
send participants to centers in other regions.  For example, the
director in region II said that he has an agreement to send
approximately 150 youths to region I and 250 youths to region IV. 
The director in region IX assigns 400 to 600 youths to the
Clearfield, Utah, center in region VIII and another 200 youths to
region X. 


      OUT-OF-STATE ASSIGNMENTS ARE
      DISTANT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Job Corps participants assigned to centers outside their state of
residence were sent to centers that were, on average, over 4 times as
distant as the in-state center closest to a participant's residence. 
For the approximately 26,000 youths leaving the program in program
year 1994 who were assigned to out-of-state Job Corps centers, we
compared the distances from their home to (1) the center to which
they were assigned and (2) the in-state center nearest their
residence.  In 92 percent of the cases where participants were
assigned out of state, there was an in-state Job Corps center closer
to the participant's home.  On average, participants assigned to
out-of-state centers traveled about 390 miles, whereas the closest
in-state center was about 90 miles from their residence.  For
example, about 2,200 Florida residents were assigned to Job Corps
centers in other states, traveling on average about 640 miles to
attend those centers.  In contrast, these participants would have
traveled, on average, only about 70 miles had they been assigned to
the nearest Florida center. 


      RESIDENTS SENT OUT OF STATE
      WHILE NONRESIDENTS ARE
      BROUGHT IN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

We noted that while residents in many states were being assigned to
out-of-state centers, a substantial number of nonresidents were being
brought in and enrolled at in-state centers.  For example, in program
year 1994, of the approximately 1,000 Arkansas residents in Job
Corps, about 600 (or 60 percent) were assigned to out-of-state
centers.  Yet, about 600 nonresidents were brought in to centers in
Arkansas from other states.  Similarly, in Georgia, 1,300 residents
from that state were assigned to Job Corps centers located elsewhere,
whereas about 1,900 individuals residing in other states were brought
in to centers located in Georgia.  Figure 4 shows states with large
numbers (500 or more) of residents sent to out-of-state centers while
large numbers of nonresidents were brought in-state.  (App.  VI
provides, for each state, the number of nonresidents brought in from
other states, as well as the number of residents sent to out-of-state
centers, for program years 1994 and 1993.)

   Figure 4:  States With Large
   Numbers of Residents Sent Out
   of State and Nonresidents
   Brought Into State, Program
   Year 1994

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      PROPORTION OF NONRESIDENTS
      VARIES AMONG CENTERS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

Assigning participants to Job Corps centers outside their state of
residence resulted in wide variations in the number of nonresidents
at individual Job Corps centers nationwide.  The majority of
participants served at about one-third of the centers were
out-of-state residents.\12

Overall, we found that in 38 of the 113\13 Job Corps centers
operating in program year 1994, 50 percent or more of the
participants resided outside the state in which the center was
located (see fig.  5).  Fifteen centers had 75 percent or more
nonresidents enrolled during program year 1994, and the 9 centers
with the most nonresidents (85 percent or more) were located in
Kentucky (6 centers), California (1), Utah (1), and West Virginia
(1).  Because program capacity in Kentucky, Utah, and West Virginia
exceeded in-state demand, large numbers of nonresidents attended
centers in these states.  California, on the other hand, had
insufficient capacity.  Nonetheless, the number of nonresidents at
the California center may have been high because it provided advanced
training for participants who previously had completed some basic
level of training at centers across the nation.  Forty-seven centers
had less than 25 percent nonresidents enrolled, including 30 centers
with less than 10 percent of their program participants coming from
out of state. 

   Figure 5:  Percentage of Center
   Participants From Out of State,
   Program Year 1994

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\12 We excluded those Job Corps participants residing in states
without Job Corps centers. 

\13 This number includes centers in Tuskegee, Alabama, and Knoxville,
Tennessee, that were subsequently closed. 


      PARTICIPANTS EMPLOYED IN
      STATE OF RESIDENCE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.5

Regardless of where Job Corps participants were assigned, those who
found jobs usually did so in their home state.  Of the approximately
42,000 Job Corps participants who obtained jobs after leaving the
program in 1994, about 83 percent found jobs in their state of
residence (85 percent in program year 1993).  Even those participants
who were assigned to Job Corps centers outside their state of
residence generally returned to their home states for employment. 
Specifically, of the 18,200 participants obtaining jobs after being
trained in centers outside their state of residence, about 13,700 (75
percent) obtained those jobs in their home state (see fig.  6). 

   Figure 6:  Number of
   Participants Obtaining Jobs in
   State of Residence, Program
   Year 1994

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


   REASONS FOR ASSIGNING
   PARTICIPANTS OUT OF STATE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Regional officials stated that substantial numbers of participants
were assigned to centers out of state due, in part, to Labor's desire
to fully utilize centers.  The other principal reason given was to
satisfy participant preferences either to be assigned to a specific
center or to be enrolled in a specific occupational training course. 

According to Labor officials, full utilization of Job Corps centers
was one of the principal reasons for assigning participants out of
state.  The Job Corps program does not routinely collect the reasons
for out-of-state assignments and, therefore, we were unable to
document the specific factors behind these decisions.  However, we
contacted Labor officials, including each of its nine regional
directors--who are ultimately responsible for center assignments--as
well as contractors responsible for 15 outreach/screening contracts,
to determine what factors contributed to out-of-state assignments. 
For the most part, these officials stated that one of the reasons for
not assigning participants to the center closest to their residence
and, instead, to out-of-state centers was to ensure that centers were
fully utilized.  For example, they pointed out that many residents
from Florida were assigned to centers in Kentucky; otherwise, centers
in Kentucky would remain underutilized.  A similar situation was
cited with respect to participants from California assigned to a
center in Utah that would otherwise be underutilized.  In addition,
Labor officials noted that participants were assigned to out-of-state
centers to fill openings that occurred throughout the year because
participants continuously leave the program due to the program's
open- entry, open-exit, self-paced format.  Moreover, at any point,
there may not be any state residents ready to enroll in the program. 

Maintaining full capacity in Job Corps centers is one measurement
Labor uses in evaluating regional director performance; Labor data
indicate that, except for a portion of program year 1994,\14 the
program has operated near full capacity during the previous 3 program
years.  Vacancies can frequently occur at Job Corps centers because
of the uneven distribution of program capacity in relation to demand
for services, the continuous turnover of participants at individual
centers, and the irregular flow of participants into the program. 
Labor officials said that in program year 1994, Job Corps had an
average occupancy rate of about 91 percent programwide.  Average
occupancy rates at the regional level, in program year 1994, ranged
from about 83 percent to 97 percent. 

We found less evidence to support the other principal reason cited
for assigning participants to distant centers--the need to satisfy
participant preferences, either to attend a particular center or to
receive training in a particular occupation.  While the Job Corps
data system does not provide information on the extent to which such
preferences are considered when making assignments, we were able to
gain some insight into the degree to which specific vocational
offerings might explain out-of-state assignments.  We analyzed the
occupational training courses in which out-of-state participants were
enrolled.  We found that over two-thirds of these individuals were
either enrolled in occupational courses commonly offered throughout
the national network of Job Corps centers or were never enrolled in
an occupational course at all.  For example, about 13 percent of the
participants sent to out-of-state centers were being trained in
clerical positions (available at 91 centers), about 8 percent in food
service (available at 94 centers), and 8 percent in health
occupations (available at 72 centers).  In addition, about 11 percent
received no specific vocational offering after being assigned to an
out-of-state center (see table 1).  Thus, specialized training or
uncommon occupational offerings do not appear to explain these
out-of-state assignments.  We were, however, unable to determine
whether a training slot in the requested vocational area was
available at the closest center when participants were assigned out
of state. 



                          Table 1
          
          Examples of Vocational Training Received
           by Job Corps Participants Assigned to
          Out-of-State Centers, Program Year 1994

                                                Percentage
                                                of out-of-
                                   Number of         state
                                     centers  participants
                                    offering   enrolled in
Vocational course                     course        course
------------------------------  ------------  ------------
Clerical                                  91          13.5
Food service                              94           8.4
Health occupations\a                      72           8.1
Welding                                   68           6.9
Building and apartment                    88           6.0
 maintenance
Bricklaying/cement masonry                66           5.7
Carpentry                                 84           5.0
Painting                                  62           4.1
No vocational course                                  10.7
==========================================================
Total                                                 68.4
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Health occupations include licensed practical nurse, nurse's aide,
and home health aide training. 


--------------------
\14 According to Labor officials, a temporary decline in occupancy
occurred because of the implementation of a new zero tolerance policy
against drugs and violence, along with the need to place about 7
percent of accepted new applicants into a control group for a
longitudinal study of the program. 


      RECENT EMPHASIS ON IN-STATE
      ASSIGNMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

During our discussions with regional Job Corps officials, some said
that they have recently begun to focus more on assigning participants
to Job Corps centers that are located in the same state in which they
reside.  Region III\15 officials incorporate in-state assignment
goals into their outreach and screening contracts, and a March 1995
regional field instruction states that the region's center assignment
plan "now places greater emphasis on the assignment of youth to
centers within their own state, or to centers within a closer
geographical area." Similarly, other regional officials told us that
they are now placing greater emphasis on in-state assignment of youth
because of increased congressional interest in having greater state
involvement in the program. 


--------------------
\15 Includes Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West
Virginia, and the District of Columbia. 


   MANY STATES HAVE SUFFICIENT
   CAPACITY TO MEET IN-STATE
   DEMAND FOR JOB CORPS TRAINING
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

During program year 1994, the majority of states with Job Corps
centers had sufficient capacity to handle virtually all the in-state
demand (at least 90 percent of in-state participants) for Job Corps
training, but this ability varied substantially among the states.  We
compared the demand for Job Corps services within each state with the
total capacity of the centers located therein.  We measured state
demand in terms of the number of residents who participated in Job
Corps, regardless of whether they attended a center within their
state of residence or out of state. 

Nationwide, 52,000 of the 64,000 Job Corps participants--81 percent
(86 percent in program year 1993)--either were or could have been
trained in centers in their home state.  As shown in figure 7, a
total of 27 states had sufficient capacity in their Job Corps centers
to accommodate virtually all the program participants from those
states, and another 12 states could meet at least 70 percent of the
demand.  (App.  VII lists the states in each of the percentage
groupings shown in fig.  7.)

   Figure 7:  States' Capacity to
   Serve Residents Enrolled in Job
   Corps Training, Program Year
   1994

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

We found substantial differences among states in the capacity of
in-state centers to serve Job Corps participants from their state. 
For example, South Carolina had over 1,600 residents participating in
Job Corps, but the centers in that state had the capacity to serve
only about 440 participants.  On the other hand, Kentucky had 485
residents in Job Corps, but had the capacity (6,373) to serve about
13 times that number of participants. 

Although 81 percent of Job Corps participants in program year 1994
either were or could have been served in their state of residence,
the remaining 19 percent (over 11,000 youths) lived in states whose
centers lacked the capacity to serve all state residents enrolled in
Job Corps.  For example, centers in California, Florida, Louisiana,
and South Carolina each would have been unable to serve over 1,000
Job Corps participants in program year 1994 in their existing
centers.  Figure 8 shows (for those states where demand was higher
than in-state capacity) the states with Job Corps centers that had a
demand that exceeded capacity by 500 or more participants. 

   Figure 8:  States Where Demand
   Exceeded Program Capacity by at
   Least 500 Participants, Program
   Year 1994

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

In addition, five states (Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Wyoming) did not have a Job Corps center in program year
1994.  These states accounted for about another 1,400 participants
who could not be served in their home state.  On the other hand, the
capacity in eight states was more than double the number of youths
from their states in Job Corps.  For example, Utah's two centers
could accommodate about 2,400 youths, but only about 700 state
residents were in the program.  Similarly, West Virginia's centers
had a capacity for about 1,100 youths, yet only about 300 West
Virginia youths enrolled in Job Corps (see fig.  9). 

   Figure 9:  States With Twice as
   Much Capacity in Relation to
   Number of Residents Enrolled in
   Job Corps, Program Year 1994

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      PLANNED EXPANSION WILL
      INCREASE CAPACITY IN SOME
      STATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

The Job Corps program's plan to establish nine new centers over the
next 2 years will provide some additional capacity that is needed in
states with existing centers, but will increase capacity in three
other states to about twice the in-state demand.  In addition, a
center opened in Connecticut (which had been without a Job Corps
center) in May 1996 that will serve about 300 annually.  Overall,
this expansion will enable the program to serve an additional 4,000
youths in those states that had insufficient capacity.  For example,
planned centers in Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, and
Tennessee will help those states address the shortage of available
training opportunities for in-state residents, reducing the shortfall
in those states from about 4,700 to 700.  However, Job Corps is also
planning to add centers in Maine, Massachusetts, and Michigan,
providing these states with the capacity to serve nearly twice the
number of state residents participating in Job Corps. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

In commenting on a draft of this report, Labor expressed some
concerns with our presentation of certain information that it
believed needed greater emphasis and with what it believed were
factors we should have considered in carrying out our analysis. 

For example, Labor said that our characterization of in-state demand
was misleading.  Furthermore, it said that we did not recognize the
limited availability of advanced training and its impact when
calculating distance for participants assigned out of state.  We have
clarified our definition of demand as used in this report and
recalculated distance, excluding advanced training participants,
which had no impact on our finding. 

Labor also pointed out recent changes in program emphasis and
provided some technical clarification.  Labor's comments, along with
our responses, are printed in appendix IX. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

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.  Copies will be made
available to others on request. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report,
please call me at (202) 512-7014 or Sigurd Nilsen at (202) 512-7003. 
Major contributors to this report include Dianne Murphy Blank,
Jeremiah Donoghue, Thomas Medvetz, Arthur Merriam, and Wayne Sylvia. 

Carlotta C.  Joyner
Director, Education and
 Employment Issues


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

We designed our study to gather information on how Job Corps is
currently operating in terms of where participants are recruited,
trained, and placed.  To do so, we analyzed Labor's Job Corps
participant data file and interviewed Job Corps officials and
recruiting contractors. 


   DATA ANALYSIS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

To analyze where Job Corps participants are recruited from, assigned
for training, and placed in jobs, we used Labor's Student Pay,
Allotment and Management Information System (SPAMIS).  Among other
things, the database contains information on the placement and
screening contractor for each participant.  We analyzed data on Job
Corps participants who left the program during program year 1994
(July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995), the most recent full year for
which data were available.  To help determine whether program year
1994 was a unique year with regard to participant assignment, we
performed similar analyses on comparable data for program year 1993. 
Unless otherwise stated, however, all numbers cited in the report
reflect program year 1994 data. 

Our basic population consisted of all participants who left the
program during program year 1994 from 113 Job Corps centers.  There
were 66,022 participants included in this population.  Two Job Corps
centers have since closed, but participants from these centers were
included in our analysis.  This basic population was used for the
analysis of capacity and average length of stay.  We eliminated
participant files with missing information or for participants who
resided in Puerto Rico or outside the United States.  We also
eliminated from our analyses those participants from states without
Job Corps centers.  This brought our analytic population to 64,060. 
Certain analyses dealt with subpopulations of the basic population. 
For example, for the analysis of where participants obtained jobs,
only those 41,975 cases where the file indicated a job placement were
used.  For program year 1993, the file indicated that 35,116
participants obtained jobs. 

To determine how far participants traveled when attending
out-of-state centers, we calculated the straight-line distance from
the participant's residence to the last assigned out-of-state center. 
The distance was calculated using the centroid--or center--for the
zip code of the participants' residence at entry and for the Job
Corps center attended.  The 5-Digit Zip Code Inventory File--part of
the Statistical Analysis System library--provided the centroid's
latitude and longitude.  These latitude and longitude measures became
the basis for the distance computations.\16 To determine whether an
in-state center was closer, we calculated the straight-line distance
from the participant's residence to the nearest Job Corps center
located in the participant's state of residence.  We then compared
this distance with the distance to the Job Corps center of
assignment. 

Our distance analysis was dependent upon having consistent address
and zip code information for the participants' residences and Job
Corps centers, and the related longitude and latitude for those zip
codes.  Longitude and latitude data for locations outside the 50
states were not available.  Thus, 989 program year 1994 participants
from Puerto Rico were not included in the analysis.  Another 680
participants were excluded from the analysis because either their zip
code was not consistent with the state of residence information or
they were missing state or zip code information.  Because our focus
for this analysis was on participants who lived in a state with a Job
Corps center, we also excluded 1,434 participants who came from
states that did not have Job Corps centers; these participants had to
be assigned to out-of-state centers.  This brought the total of the
population for this analysis to 62,391 in program year 1994.  This
includes all participants regardless of the type of training program
in which they participated.  Table I.1 presents a summary of the
subgroup sizes for analyses performed on program years 1994 and 1993
data. 



                         Table I.1
          
          Number of Cases Analyzed, Program Years
                       1994 and 1993


                               Program year   Program year
Population analytic subgroup           1994           1993
----------------------------  -------------  -------------
Total terminees in file              66,022         62,454
Excluded participant files             (61)          (337)
 for missing information
Excluded participants not             (467)          (444)
 residing in United States,
 District of Columbia, or
 Puerto Rico
Total terminees in our               65,494         61,673
 population
Total terminees in states           (1,434)        (1,670)
 without Job Corps centers
Total terminees in states            64,060         60,003
 with Job Corps centers
Distance analysis
Excluded participant files            (989)          (940)
 with longitude and latitude
 data unavailable
Excluded participant files            (680)          (422)
 with inconsistent or
 missing zip code data
Total number of participants         62,391         58,641
 in distance analysis
----------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the program year 1994 capacity of each Job Corps center,
we used Labor's listing of residential and nonresidential capacity at
any one time (slots) for each Job Corps center and multiplied it by
the average number of days in a year (365.25 days).  We then divided
that number by the average length of stay of program year 1994
terminees at that center.  For example, the Carl D.  Perkins Job
Corps Center in Prestonsburg, Kentucky, had a stated capacity of 245
slots and a program year 1994 average length of stay of 236.56 days. 
We calculated the yearly capacity of the Perkins' Center at 378
participants (245 times 365.25 divided by 236.56).  On this basis, we
performed center-by-center calculations and aggregated them to the
state level to estimate a yearly capacity by state.  To estimate
in-state demand, we used all program participants from that state,
regardless of where they were assigned, as a proxy measure.  We
recognize that this does not reflect total program demand, which
would also include those who are eligible and interested in Job Corps
but had not yet enrolled in the program. 


--------------------
\16 This calculation is consistent with that used by MapInfo
Corporation's software reference manual (Troy, N.Y.:  MapInfo
Corporation, 1994). 


   INTERVIEWS WITH OFFICIALS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

To obtain information on the process the Job Corps program uses to
assign participants to centers, we interviewed Labor officials in the
nine regional offices, as well as at headquarters.  Using a
semistructured interview protocol, we asked questions related to how
participants are assigned to Job Corps centers, including the
program's policies and procedures for participant assignments, the
responsibilities and documentation requirements for each level of
oversight, and the assignment patterns for participants within the
regions.  Additionally, we asked questions based on the analysis of
program year 1993 assignment information (because program year 1994
data were not yet available at the time) that showed the extent to
which participants were assigned out of state and out of region. 
Each official was also asked to comment on the current assignment
patterns for participants within their regions. 

To obtain additional information on the Job Corps participant
assignment process, we interviewed a sample of contractors
responsible for 15 recruiting contracts.  Using the program year 1993
assignment data contained in SPAMIS, we selected the top 16
large-scale recruiting contracts--defined as those that assigned over
300 participants to Job Corps centers--with the highest proportion of
participants who were sent out of state.  For contrast, we also chose
three other recruiting contracts from the same locations that had
relatively few out-of-state assignments.  Each contractor was
interviewed by telephone using a semistructured interview protocol
that included questions relating to the Job Corps' participant
assignment process.  Specifically, we asked about the status of their
recruiting contract(s) and their responsibilities and reporting
requirements.  We also asked the recruiting contractors to identify
those factors that had the most impact on their decision on where to
assign a participant.  Some of the contractors were no longer under
contract, and others could not be reached.  As a result, we
interviewed contractors responsible for 13 contracts that had a large
proportion of participants recruited for out-of-state centers and 2
contracts that had relatively fewer participants going out of state. 
While our questions were based on the analysis of program year 1993
assignment information, we also asked each recruiting contractor to
comment on his or her current student assignment patterns. 


   LIMITATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

We selected recruiting contractors to interview on the basis of their
assignment of participants to centers outside participants' states of
residence.  This selection process was not random and, therefore, the
results reported cannot be generalized to recruiting contractors
overall. 

Our distance analysis was based upon zip code centroid and is
intended to provide a gross measure of distance.  Actual travel
distances may vary.  The average length of stay of participants at
Job Corps centers can show some variation from year to year, as would
the estimated center capacity when calculated from this number.  To
illustrate these variations, we have presented program year 1993 data
alongside data for program year 1994 (see app.  II).  While we did
not verify the accuracy of the SPAMIS data provided by Labor, we did
check the consistency of participants' zip code and state of
residence data and eliminated those files with inconsistent
information.  We also compared the results from our analyses of
program year 1994 data with those from program year 1993 for
consistency at the national, regional, and state levels. 


COMPARISON OF KEY DATA FOR PROGRAM
YEARS 1994 AND 1993
========================================================== Appendix II

                               Program year   Program year
                                       1994           1993
----------------------------  -------------  -------------
Assignment of state
 residents
Percentage assigned to                 59.0           56.4
 centers in home state
Percentage sent to centers             41.0           43.6
 in other states
Percentage of state
 residents assigned to out-
 of-state centers
Number of states assigning               16             12
 0-24 percent of state
 residents out of state
Number of states assigning               16             15
 25-49 percent of state
 residents out of state
Number of states assigning               11             15
 50-74 percent of state
 residents out of state
Number of states assigning                4              3
 75%+ state residents out of
 state
Percentage of Job Corps                  95             92
 participants assigned to
 centers in same region as
 residence
Distances traveled
Average distance traveled               392            338
 (in miles) by participants
 assigned to out-of-state
 centers
Average distance (in miles)              93             77
 to nearest in-state center
 for those participants
 assigned to out-of-state
 centers
Percentage of center
 participants from out of
 state
Number of centers having 0-              47             43
 24 percent of participants
 from out of state
Number of centers having 25-             28             28
 49 percent of participants
 from out of state
Number of centers having 50-             23             25
 74 percent of participants
 from out of state
Number of centers having 75+             15             16
 percent participants from
 out of state
Job placement
Number of participants               41,975         35,116
 obtaining jobs
Number of participants               34,971         29,935
 obtaining jobs in home
 state
Percentage obtaining jobs in           83.3           85.3
 home state
In-state capacity and demand
Number of participants that          52,199         51,752
 were or could have been
 trained in state
Percentage of participants             81.5           86.0
 that were or could have
 been trained in state
Number of participants               11,861          8,410
 unable to be served in
 state
----------------------------------------------------------

STATES WITHIN JOB CORPS REGIONS,
PROGRAM YEAR 1994
========================================================= Appendix III



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


COMPARISON OF STATE PROGRAM
CAPACITY WITH IN-STATE DEMAND,
PROGRAM YEAR 1994
========================================================== Appendix IV


                  Capacity       In-            Insufficie
State                   \a     state    Excess          nt
----------------  --------  --------  --------  ----------
Alaska                 552       420       132
Alabama              1,018     1,499                   481
Arkansas             1,143       999       144
Arizona                927     1,193                   266
California           3,477     4,591                 1,114
Colorado               289       914                   625
District of            824       618       206
 Columbia
Florida              1,630     3,492                 1,862
Georgia              2,915     2,711       204
Hawaii                 300       148       152
Iowa                   517       525                     8
Idaho                  199       379                   180
Illinois             1,089     2,012                   923
Indiana              1,138       788       350
Kansas                 425       580                   155
Kentucky             6,373       485     5,888
Louisiana              799     1,967                 1,168
Massachusetts        1,479       889       590
Maryland             1,212     1,535                   323
Maine                  569       458       111
Michigan             1,428     1,057       371
Minnesota              469       462         7
Missouri             2,291     2,527                   236
Mississippi          1,930     2,240                   310
Montana              1,090       568       522
North Carolina       1,776     2,375                   599
North Dakota           882       347       535
Nebraska               328       474                   146
New Jersey             899     1,026                   127
New Mexico           1,053       825       228
Nevada                 824       324       500
New York             3,252     3,278                    26
Ohio                 1,557     2,056                   499
Oklahoma             2,487     1,177     1,310
Oregon               1,973     1,486       487
Pennsylvania         2,963     2,779       184
Puerto Rico            923       989                    66
South Carolina         442     1,691                 1,249
South Dakota           325       435                   110
Tennessee              925     1,206                   281
Texas                4,936     5,313                   377
Utah                 2,378       681     1,697
Vermont                510       158       352
Virginia             1,456     1,960                   504
Washington           1,515     1,741                   226
West Virginia        1,124       329       795
Wisconsin              398       353        45
==========================================================
Total               67,009    64,060    14,810      11,861
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  In program year 1994, Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, and Wyoming had no centers. 

\a We calculated capacity by dividing the number of beds at each Job
Corps center by the average length of stay at each center.  We then
aggregated center capacity to the state level to estimate a yearly
capacity by state. 


PERCENTAGE OF PARTICIPANTS
ASSIGNED OUT OF STATE, PROGRAM
YEARS 1994 AND 1993
=========================================================== Appendix V


   PERCENTAGE OF PARTICIPANTS
   ASSIGNED OUT OF STATE, PROGRAM
   YEAR 1994
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1

0 to 24 Percent:  Arizona, California, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New
York, Puerto Rico, Utah, Vermont

25 to 49 Percent:  Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi,
Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Washington

50 to 74 Percent:  Alabama, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Florida,
Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West
Virginia

75+ Percent:  Colorado, Illinois, South Carolina, Wisconsin


   PERCENTAGE OF PARTICIPANTS
   ASSIGNED OUT OF STATE, PROGRAM
   YEAR 1993
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2

0 to 24 Percent:  Arizona, California, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Utah

25 to 49 Percent:  Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi,
Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington

50 to 74 Percent:  Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, North
Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia

75+ Percent:  Illinois, South Carolina, Wisconsin


NUMBER OF NONRESIDENTS BROUGHT
INTO STATES COMPARED WITH NUMBER
OF RESIDENTS SENT OUT OF STATE,
PROGRAM YEARS 1994 AND 1993
========================================================== Appendix VI



                         Table VI.1
          
             Participants Assigned Out of State
           Compared With Nonresidents Brought In,
                     Program Year 1994


                                Brought in     Assigned to
                                from other    out-of-state
State\a                             states         centers
--------------------------  --------------  --------------
Alaska                                   1             159
Alabama                                369             954
Arkansas                               580             584
Arizona                                 35             267
California                             170           1,076
Colorado                                32             689
District of Columbia                   589             390
Florida                                298           2,241
Georgia                              1,912           1,311
Hawaii                                   1               8
Iowa                                   143             120
Idaho                                  118             255
Illinois                               523           1,526
Indiana                                916             376
Kansas                                  56             189
Kentucky                             4,858             117
Louisiana                               76           1,284
Massachusetts                          155             190
Maryland                               573             986
Maine                                   85             100
Michigan                               489             251
Minnesota                               70              51
Missouri                               355             432
Mississippi                            593             805
Montana                                685             214
North Carolina                         765           1,474
North Dakota                            11             142
Nebraska                                29             187
New Jersey                              13             138
New Mexico                             563             265
Nevada                                 531              23
New York                                98             372
Ohio                                   775             962
Oklahoma                             1,492             335
Oregon                               1,037             490
Pennsylvania                           906             813
Puerto Rico                              2              12
South Carolina                          80           1,332
South Dakota                            64             193
Tennessee                              524             755
Texas                                1,131           1,577
Utah                                 1,994             165
Virginia                               564           1,164
Vermont                                172              30
Washington                             603             810
Wisconsin                              333             269
West Virginia                          905             191
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Only states with Job Corps centers are included. 



                         Table VI.2
          
             Participants Assigned Out of State
           Compared With Nonresidents Brought In,
                     Program Year 1993


                                Brought in     Assigned to
                                from other    out-of-state
State\a                             states         centers
--------------------------  --------------  --------------
Alaska                                  \b              \b
Alabama                                234             888
Arkansas                               564             628
Arizona                                 40             248
California                             236             994
Colorado                                28             501
District of Columbia                   506             489
Florida                                215           2,075
Georgia                              1,694           1,279
Hawaii                                   3              11
Iowa                                   150             116
Idaho                                  138             204
Illinois                               683           1,473
Indiana                                824             472
Kansas                                  38             233
Kentucky                             4,752             165
Louisiana                              165           1,222
Massachusetts                          189             185
Maryland                               728           1,180
Maine                                  120             106
Michigan                               308             436
Minnesota                               61              75
Missouri                               337             406
Mississippi                            396             959
Montana                                469             155
North Carolina                         612           1,420
North Dakota                            \b              \b
Nebraska                                35             117
New Jersey                              37             368
New Mexico                             423             235
Nevada                                 456              52
New York                               175             371
Ohio                                   851             987
Oklahoma                             1,417             267
Oregon                                 893             485
Pennsylvania                           889           1,133
Puerto Rico                              4               7
South Carolina                          34           1,294
South Dakota                            37             149
Tennessee                              416             688
Texas                                1,093           1,415
Utah                                 1,611             137
Virginia                               522           1,224
Vermont                                122              39
Washington                             524             826
Wisconsin                              295             291
West Virginia                        2,850             169
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Only states with Job Corps centers are included. 

\b The centers in Alaska and North Dakota (one in each state) were
not fully operational in program year 1993. 


PERCENTAGE OF IN-STATE
PARTICIPANTS THAT COULD BE SERVED
BY STATES, PROGRAM YEARS 1994 AND
1993
========================================================= Appendix VII


   PERCENTAGE OF IN-STATE
   PARTICIPANTS THAT COULD BE
   SERVED, PROGRAM YEAR 1994
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:1

Less Than 30 Percent:  South Carolina

30 to 49 Percent:  Colorado, Florida, Louisiana

50 to 69 Percent:  Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Nebraska

70 to 89 Percent:  Arizona, California, Kansas, Maryland,
Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Virginia, Washington

90+ Percent:  Alaska, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Georgia,
Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin


   PERCENTAGE OF IN-STATE
   PARTICIPANTS THAT COULD BE
   SERVED, PROGRAM YEAR 1993
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:2

Less Than 30 Percent:  None

30 to 49 Percent:  Colorado, Louisiana, South Carolina

50 to 69 Percent:  Florida, Idaho, Illinois

70 to 89 Percent:  Alabama, Arizona, California, Kansas, Maryland,
Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Virginia

90+ Percent:  Arkansas, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin


TABLES SUPPORTING BAR GRAPHS IN
REPORT TEXT
======================================================== Appendix VIII



                        Table VIII.1
          
            Program Capacity of States--Data for
                          Figure 2

Number of participants that can be
served annually                           Number of states
--------------------------------------  ------------------
100-499                                                 10
500-999                                                 12
1,000-1,499                                             10
1,500-1,999                                              6
2,000+                                                   9
----------------------------------------------------------


                        Table VIII.2
          
            State Residents Assigned to Out-of-
              State Centers--Data for Figure 3

Percentage of participants assigned
out-of-state                              Number of states
--------------------------------------  ------------------
0-24                                                    16
25-49                                                   16
50-74                                                   11
75+                                                      4
----------------------------------------------------------


                        Table VIII.3
          
          Examples of States With Large Numbers of
              Residents Sent Out of State and
           Nonresidents Brought Into State--Data
                        for Figure 4

                                   Number of     Number of
                                   residents  nonresidents
                                 sent out of    brought in
State                                  state         state
------------------------------  ------------  ------------
Arkansas                                 584           580
Georgia                                1,311         1,912
Mississippi                              805           593
Ohio                                     962           775
Pennsylvania                             813           906
Tennessee                                755           524
Texas                                  1,577         1,131
Washington                               810           603
----------------------------------------------------------


                        Table VIII.4
          
           Percentage of Center Participants From
              Out of State--Data for Figure 5

Percentage of participants from out of
state                                    Number of centers
--------------------------------------  ------------------
0-24                                                    47
25-49                                                   28
50-75                                                   23
75+                                                     15
----------------------------------------------------------


                        Table VIII.5
          
          Number of Participants Obtaining Jobs in
           State of Residence--Data for Figure 6

                                                 Number of
                                   Number of  participants
                                participants     obtaining
                                   obtaining       jobs in
                                jobs in home       another
Location of Job Corps training         state         state
------------------------------  ------------  ------------
Trained in state                      21,272         2,500
Trained out of state                  13,699         4,504
----------------------------------------------------------


                        Table VIII.6
          
            States' Capacity to Serve Residents
          Enrolled in Job Corps Training--Data for
                          Figure 7

Percentage of in state participants
that could be served by states            Number of states
--------------------------------------  ------------------
<30                                                      1
30-49                                                    3
50-69                                                    4
70-89                                                   12
90+                                                     27
----------------------------------------------------------


                        Table VIII.7
          
            States Where Demand Exceeded Program
          Capacity by at Least 500 Participants--
                     Data for Figure 8

                                                     State
                                              residents in
State                               Capacity       program
------------------------------  ------------  ------------
California                             3,477         4,591
Colorado                                 289           914
Florida                                1,630         3,492
Illinois                               1,089         2,012
Louisiana                                799         1,967
North Carolina                         1,776         2,375
South Carolina                           442         1,691
Virginia                               1,456         1,960
----------------------------------------------------------


                        Table VIII.8
          
           States With Twice as Much Capacity in
          Relation to Number of Residents Enrolled
              in Job Corps--Data for Figure 9

                                                     State
                                              residents in
State                               Capacity       program
------------------------------  ------------  ------------
Kentucky                               6,373           485
Nevada                                   824           324
Oklahoma                               2,487         1,177
Utah                                   2,378           681
West Virginia                          1,124           329
----------------------------------------------------------



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



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Labor's letter
dated June 3, 1996. 


   GAO COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:1

1.  The legislative language relating to the assignment of enrollees
to Job Corps centers is included in the Background section of the
report. 

2.  We have modified our report to note that the Job Corps regional
operations are carried out under the direction of nine regional
managers. 

3.  We agree that participants transferring into advanced training
may be required to travel additional miles to attend this training. 
To respond to Labor's comments, we attempted to identify all the
participants included in our analysis who transferred into advanced
training courses.  We were able to identify all participants who
transferred from the original center to which they were assigned,
regardless of the reason for transfer, but the information was not
available to identify those specifically transferring to advanced
training programs.  Nonetheless, eliminating from our analysis the
over 1,800 participants who transferred between centers did not
change our findings.  The average distance traveled by participants
assigned to out-of-state centers was 375 miles, compared with about
390 miles when including the over 1,800; the distance to the nearest
in-state center remained the same--93 miles.  Thus, our finding--that
participants assigned to centers outside their state of residence
were sent to centers that were, on average, over 4 times as far as
the closest in-state center--is unchanged. 

4.  We have modified our report, where appropriate, to indicate that
our use of the term "demand" is limited to only those enrolling in
Job Corps and that it does not include those who are eligible and
interested in the program but have not yet enrolled. 

5.  Our report provides a separate section with a caption that
highlights that program participants are employed in their state of
residence. 

6.  We have clarified our report to recognize that the high number of
nonresidents in the California center cited may have been due to the
nature of the training offered, that is, the center provided advanced
training to participants from across the nation. 

7.  The reasons for assigning participants to out-of-state centers
cited in our report are based on comments by those involved in
deciding where enrollees are actually assigned--the nine regional
directors and several outreach/screening contractors.  The principal
reasons cited were to fully use available space at the centers and to
satisfy participants' preferences either to attend a specific center
or to enroll in a specific occupational training course. 

8.  As suggested, we have included a statement in the Results in
Brief section that recognizes our inability to determine whether
specific vocational training slots were available at the closest
center when participants were enrolled. 

9.  We have included a statement on page 4 of our report to recognize
Job Corps' proactive role in ensuring that the program works more
closely with state and local agencies. 




RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
=========================================================== Appendix 0

Job Corps:  Comparison of Federal Program With State Youth Training
Initiatives (GAO/HEHS-96-92, Mar.  28, 1996). 

Job Corps Program (GAO/HEHS-96-61R, Nov.  9, 1995). 

Job Corps:  High Costs and Mixed Results Raise Questions About
Program's Effectiveness (GAO/HEHS-95-180, June 30, 1995). 


*** End of document. ***