Job Corps: Links With Labor Market Improved but Vocational Training
Performance Overstated (Letter Report, 11/04/1998, GAO/HEHS-99-15).

The Labor Department spends about $1 billion on the Jobs Corps program
each year to job train severely disadvantaged youths.  Labor has several
efforts to foster the program's employer and community linkages to help
ensure that its vocational training is appropriate to local labor
markets and relevant to employers' needs.  However, Jobs Corps' data on
the extent to which participants complete vocational training and obtain
training-related jobs are misleading and overstate the program's
results.  GAO found that only 14 percent of program participants
actually completed all the requirements of their vocational training
curricula.  At five Job Corps centers GAO visited, the validity of about
41 percent of the job placements reported by Labor to be
training-related was questionable.  At one center, Labor reported that
several participants receiving clerical training had gotten jobs as bank
tellers, even though they actually worked at fast food restaurants,
retail stores, and a gas station.  GAO also found that about one third
of Job Corps' vocational training has been provided under sole source
contracts awarded to national labor and business organizations for more
than 30 years.  In GAO's opinion, Labor has not adequately justified
procuring these training services noncompetitively.

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

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-99-15
     TITLE:  Job Corps: Links With Labor Market Improved but Vocational
	     Training Performance Overstated
      DATE:  11/04/1998
   SUBJECT:  Vocational education
	     Youth employment programs
	     Contract performance
	     Training utilization
	     State-administered programs
	     Sole source procurement
	     Labor statistics
	     Education or training costs
	     Program evaluation
	     Performance measures
IDENTIFIER:  DOL Job Corps Program

******************************************************************
** 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 Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives

November 1998

JOB CORPS - LINKS WITH LABOR
MARKET IMPROVED BUT VOCATIONAL
TRAINING PERFORMANCE OVERSTATED

GAO/HEHS-99-15

Job Corps Vocational Training

(205364)

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

  ABC - Test

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

B-279218

November 4, 1998

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

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

Job Corps is an employment and training program aimed at providing
severely disadvantaged youths with a comprehensive array of services,
generally in a residential setting.  The Department of Labor spends
about $1 billion under this program each year to serve more than
68,000 youths, who, on average, spend about 7 months in the program. 
On average, the cost per participant is more than $15,000, making Job
Corps the nation's most expensive job training program.  One of the
services that is critical to the program's success is vocational
training.  Each of Job Corps' 113 centers offers training in several
vocational areas, such as automotive trades, health occupations,
construction trades, culinary arts, clerical occupations, and
building and apartment maintenance.  Vocational training services can
be provided by Job Corps center staff, private providers under
contract to the Job Corps center, or national labor and business
organizations under contract with Job Corps' national office. 

In the past, we have assessed various aspects of the Job Corps
program--outreach, admissions, and placement; costs and results;
similarities to state youth training initiatives; and the extent to
which the program is locally based.\1

Reflecting your continued interest in the Job Corps program, you
requested that we examine Job Corps' vocational training component to
describe the program's contracting policies and procedures and to
assess contractor performance.  Specifically, you asked us to
determine how Job Corps ensures that vocational training is
appropriate and relevant to employers' needs and the extent to which
participants are completing vocational training and obtaining
training-related jobs.  In addition, you asked us to describe Job
Corps' process for contracting with vocational training providers, in
particular Labor's use of sole source contracting with national
training contractors.\2

In carrying out our work, we met with Labor officials and reviewed
Labor's policies and procedures for contracting for vocational
services.  We obtained data on program outcomes for Job Corps
participants during the period July 1, 1995, to June 30, 1997, the
two most recently completed program years.\3 We visited five centers
that used a variety of methods to provide vocational training and
that served a majority of local participants--those who resided
within 100 miles of a center.  At these centers, we reviewed
participant data on vocational completion status and placement
information.  In reviewing job training match information, we used
reported placement information and the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles and called a number of employers to clarify reported
information.  We visited a sixth center--one that recently opened--to
gather information on its experience in deciding which vocational
training courses to offer.  We performed our work between January and
July 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.  (App.  I contains a more detailed discussion of our scope
and methodology.)

--------------------
\1 Job Corps:  Need for Better Enrollment Guidance and Improved
Placement Measures (GAO/HEHS-98-1, Oct.  21, 1997); Job Corps:  High
Costs and Mixed Results Raise Questions About Program's Effectiveness
(GAO/HEHS-95-180, June 30, 1995); Job Corps:  Comparison of Federal
Program With State Youth Training Initiatives (GAO/HEHS-96-92, Mar. 
28, 1996); and Job Corps:  Where Participants Are Recruited, Trained,
and Placed in Jobs (GAO/HEHS-96-140, July 17, 1996). 

\2 We presented preliminary findings on this work in testimony before
the Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight:  Job Corps:  Vocational Training Performance
Data Overstate Program Success (GAO/T-HEHS-98-218, July 29, 1998). 

\3 A program year begins on July 1 of a year and ends on June 30 of
the following year.  A program year is designated by the year in
which it begins.  Thus, program year 1996 began on July 1, 1996, and
ended on June 30, 1997. 

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

Labor has several activities to foster Job Corps' employer and
community linkages to ensure the appropriateness of its vocational
training to local labor markets and its relevance to employers'
needs.  Labor has industry advisory groups that regularly review
vocational course curricula to ensure their relevance to today's job
market.  Labor has also introduced a school-to-work initiative
designed to link Job Corps with local employers, combining
center-based training with actual worksite experience at more than
half the Job Corps centers.  In addition, Labor involves local
business and community leaders in deciding which vocational training
programs to offer at newly established Job Corps centers. 
Complementing these national efforts, three of Labor's regional
offices have developed their own initiatives to improve linkages
between Job Corps and local labor markets, including modifying
existing vocational offerings to meet local employer needs. 

Despite Labor's efforts to increase the effectiveness of its
vocational training through employer and community linkages, Job
Corps data on the extent to which participants complete vocational
training and obtain training-related jobs are misleading and
overstate the program's results.  Although Job Corps reported that 48
percent of its program year 1996 participants completed their
vocational training, we found that only 14 percent of the program
participants actually completed all the requirements of their
vocational training curricula.  The rest of the participants whom Job
Corps considered to be vocational completers had performed only some
of the duties and tasks of a specific vocational training program. 
Labor also reported that 62 percent of the participants nationwide
who obtained employment found jobs that matched the vocational
training received in Job Corps.  At the five centers we visited,
however, the validity of about 41 percent of the job placements
reported by Labor to be training-related was questionable.  Examples
of questionable training-related job placements include several
participants at one center receiving clerical training but reported
by Labor as getting jobs as bank tellers at fast food restaurants,
retail stores, and a gas station; several participants at another
center were trained in health occupations and were reported as
getting jobs as information clerks at various restaurants and a car
rental agency. 

Finally, in looking at how training providers are selected, we found
that about a third of Job Corps' vocational training has been
provided under sole source contracts awarded to national labor and
business organizations for more than 30 years, but in our opinion,
Labor has not adequately justified procuring these training services
noncompetitively.  A principal reason Labor has cited for awarding
these contracts on a sole source basis is that these organizations
maintain an extensive nationwide placement network and are better
able than nonnational organizations to place Job Corps participants
who complete their training.  Labor has provided no data, however, to
show the extent to which these sole source contractors actually place
Job Corps participants nationwide. 

In light of our work, we are recommending to the Secretary of Labor
actions to more accurately assess Job Corps' accomplishments and
adequately justify the use of sole source contracts for vocational
training. 

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

Job Corps was established as a national employment and training
program in 1964 to address employment barriers faced by severely
disadvantaged youths.  Job Corps enrolls youths aged 16 to 24 who are
economically disadvantaged, in need of additional education or
training, and living under disorienting conditions such as a
disruptive homelife.\4 In program year 1996, nearly 80 percent of the
participants were high school dropouts and almost two-thirds had
never been employed full-time.  Participating 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 improving reading or mathematics skills. 

Job Corps currently operates 113 centers throughout the United
States, including Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico.  Major corporations and nonprofit organizations manage
and operate 85 Job Corps centers under contractual agreements with
Labor.  Contract center operators are selected through a competitive
procurement process that takes into account proposed costs, an
operator's expertise, and prior program performance.  In addition,
the U.S.  Department of the Interior and the U.S.  Department of
Agriculture operate 28 Job Corps centers, called civilian
conservation centers, on public lands under interagency agreements
with Labor.  Each center provides participants with a wide range of
services, including basic education, vocational skills training,
social skills instruction, counseling, health care, room and board,
and recreational activities. 

One feature that makes Job Corps unique is that, for the most part,
it is a residential program.  About 90 percent of the youths enrolled
each year live at Job Corps centers and are provided services 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 different setting
where a variety of support services is available around the clock. 
The comprehensive services Job Corps provides make it a relatively
expensive program.  According to Labor's program year 1996 figures,
the average cost per Job Corps participant was more than $15,000. 
Cost varies according to how long Job Corps participants remain in
the program.  Participants stay in the program for an average of
about 7 months but may stay as long as 2 years.  Labor estimates the
cost for a participant who remains in the program for a year to be
about $25,000. 

Vocational training is a critical element of the Job Corps program. 
This training is designed to offer individualized, self-paced, and
open entry-open exit instruction to allow participants to progress at
their own pace.  Vocational training can be provided in any
combination of three ways.  Most vocational training is offered by
instructors who are Job Corps center staff.  Other vocational courses
are taught by private providers under contract to the center.  These
private providers typically include vocational schools and community
colleges.  About a third of the vocational training expenditure is
provided by national labor unions and business organizations under
sole source contracts with Labor.  In program year 1996, Job Corps'
operating costs totaled about $986 million, of which $144 million, or
about 15 percent, was for vocational training (see table 1). 

                          Table 1
          
           Job Corps Operating Costs for Program
                         Year 1996

                                      Amount    Percentage
Expense category                  (millions)      of total
------------------------------  ------------  ------------
Student training costs                $424.7          43.1
Basic education                         72.6           7.4
Vocational training                    144.0          14.6
Social skills training                 208.1          21.1
Supportive services                    378.0          38.3
Outreach and intake                     41.4           4.2
Transportation                          14.5           1.5
Meals and lodging                      146.6          14.8
Allowances                              81.6           8.3
Workers compensation benefits            4.5           0.5
Medical care                            56.4           5.7
Placement and settlement                32.9           3.3
Administration                         183.1          18.6
==========================================================
Total                                 $985.8         100.0
----------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Job Corps Annual Report, Program Year 1996, Department of
Labor, Employment and Training Administration. 

Overall, Job Corps offers training in 100 different vocations. 
Although the number of vocations offered at any one Job Corps center
varies, most centers offer training in 7 to 10 different vocations. 
Some centers, however, offer training in as few as 5 vocations while
others offer training in as many as 31 different vocations.  Some
vocations are available at most centers, while others are available
at only a single center.  For example, more than 80 percent of the
centers offer training in business clerical, culinary arts, building
and apartment maintenance, and carpentry.  Thirty-one vocations,
including computer programmer, asphalt paving, barber, teacher aide,
and cable TV installer, are offered only at a single center. 

Many centers also offer off-site advanced career training at such
institutions as vocational schools, community colleges, and
universities for participants who have been in the program for at
least 6 months.  Regardless of who provides the training, Job Corps
policy requires that all vocational training programs use
competency-based curricula that contain a series of skills, or
competencies, that participants must attain.  According to Labor
officials, each vocational training program's curriculum and set of
required skills are regularly reviewed and updated by industry
advisory groups consisting of business, industry, and training
providers. 

Labor uses a series of nine measures to report on the performance of
the program nationally and to assess the performance of individual
Job Corps centers.  The measures relate to placement--in a job, in
education, or in military service--learning gains in mathematics and
reading, earning a general equivalency diploma certificate,
completing vocational training, placement in a job related to the
training received, and placement wage.  In program year 1996, Job
Corps reported that 80 percent of the participants leaving the
program were placed--70 percent in jobs or the military and 10
percent enrolled in education--and 62 percent of those who were
placed in jobs or the military obtained a job related to their
training.  Job Corps also reported that 48 percent of those who left
the program completed vocational training. 

--------------------
\4 Although the act includes 14- and 15-year-old youths in the age
criteria, Job Corps regulations provide that youths 14 and 15 years
of age may be eligible "upon a specific determination by the program
director to enroll them."

   LABOR'S INITIATIVES ENHANCE THE
   APPROPRIATENESS AND RELEVANCY
   OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Labor has several activities to improve Job Corps' employer and
community linkages to ensure that vocational training is appropriate
for local labor markets and relevant to employers' needs.  These
efforts include initiatives enacted by Job Corps' national office and
regional offices, as well as efforts by individual Job Corps centers. 

      NATIONAL INITIATIVES
      RECOGNIZE NEED FOR EMPLOYER
      INVOLVEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Since 1984, Labor has used industry advisory groups to review
vocational course curricula to ensure that course content is relevant
to the job market.  Each year, Labor selects a number of vocational
offerings for review by an Industry Advisory Group consisting of Job
Corps instructors and academic program representatives as well as
industry representatives from each vocational offering being
reviewed.  For example, recent industry representatives included
computer operators and repair technicians, electronic assemblers,
diesel and heavy equipment mechanics, health occupation workers,
material handlers, tile setters, and clerical workers.  The Industry
Advisory Group recommends to Labor changes to Job Corps' vocational
training curricula, materials, and equipment.  Vocational offerings
are evaluated and updated on a 3-to-5-year cycle dictated by industry
changes and the number of students participating in each vocational
training program. 

In program year 1995, Labor introduced a school-to-work initiative at
three Job Corps centers combining center-based training with actual
worksite experience related to it.  Labor expanded this initiative to
an additional 30 centers in program year 1996 and to 30 more centers
in program year 1997.  Labor provided financial incentives and
supportive services to encourage centers to participate in the
school-to-work initiative.  According to Labor officials, the
school-to-work initiatives have resulted in extensive partnerships
being established between the centers, area businesses, and local
school systems.  Through these partnerships, employers are providing
worksite learning experiences, suggesting approaches for integrating
curricula, developing assessment criteria for documenting skill
mastery, and participating in career exposure activities.  At one
school-to-work Job Corps center that we visited, 35 participants from
program year 1996 were involved in this initiative and all were
placed--32 had jobs, 2 returned to school, and 1 joined the military. 
Furthermore, 70 percent of the jobs were directly related to the
vocational training received in Job Corps. 

Labor also involves local business and community leaders in deciding
which vocational training programs are to be offered at newly
established Job Corps centers.  For example, at the new center we
visited, we found that 2 years prior to the awarding of the center's
contract, decisions on the vocations to be offered were made with
input from local business and community leaders, including
representatives of the mayor's office, the private industry council,
the school department, and local businesses.\5 The result was that
this center does not offer many of the traditional Job Corps
vocational programs, such as clerical, culinary arts, landscaping,
and building and apartment maintenance.  Instead, it has nine
vocational areas in such high-demand occupations as medical
assistant, phlebotomy and EKG technician, and computer repair.  At
another new center, Labor officials stated that local labor market
information along with input from local community and business
leaders, including the local private industry council, union
representatives, local school system, health groups, and chamber of
commerce, ensured that the vocational training courses offered at
that center would be appropriate and current given the local economy. 

Labor officials also informed us that changes to vocational training
offerings at existing centers result from changes in labor market
demand or poor performance of a particular vocational training
program.  Centers obtain approval for a change by completing the
appropriate paperwork for a request for change and submitting it to
either the regional office (if the change involves a center-operated
or center-contracted vocational offering) or the national office (if
the change involves a vocational course offered by a national labor
union or business organization).  Labor then assesses the request to
change course offerings and reviews the placement analyses, wages
reported, female participation rate in the course, local labor market
information, and facility requirements.  In addition, Labor requires
the center to obtain statements from three employers stating that the
vocational change is appropriate and relevant.  All five of the
centers we visited had recently made changes to their vocational
course offerings.  For example, one center added a physical therapy
course after receiving numerous requests from clinics and hospitals
within the community.  The center was able to add this course by
dropping a cosmetology course.  Another center identified a local
demand for qualified workers in retail sales and tourism.  The center
added training in these vocations while reducing the size of its
clerical training program. 

--------------------
\5 Under the Job Training Partnership Act of 1983, a private industry
council, comprising representatives of private sector employers,
local education agencies, organized labor, rehabilitation agencies,
community-based organizations, economic development agencies, and the
public service employment agency, is appointed by local elected
officials of each service delivery area and approves a job training
plan designed to meet local employment and training needs. 

      REGIONAL JOB CORPS
      INITIATIVES EXPAND EMPLOYER
      RELATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

In addition to national efforts, three of Labor's regional offices
have developed their own initiatives to improve linkages between Job
Corps centers and employers.  In one region, business leaders
representing a variety of industries met with Labor and center staff
to provide observations of the program and the participants they
hire.  The group--a business roundtable--set up a framework for
obtaining employer input into the operation of the Job Corps program
for the benefit of young people, employers, community leaders, and
the Job Corps system nationwide.  In an effort to bridge the gap
between the needs of private industry and vocational training, the
roundtable recommended actions and supported the implementation of
new strategies to resolve employer issues that it identified and
prioritized.  As a direct result of this roundtable, concrete
linkages were established.  For example, a bank involved as a
school-to-work program participant provided equipment and instructors
to incorporate bank telling into the center's clerical program. 
According to Labor officials, the initiative was successful, and the
regional office is currently exploring the possibility of duplicating
this effort in several other Job Corps centers.  At another center
within the region, an electronics firm reviewed the center's
electronics curriculum and suggested additional skills allowing
program participants to qualify for higher-paying jobs. 

Another region has endorsed a major initiative between a Job Corps
center and the Q-Lube Corporation whereby a building at the center
was renovated to exactly meet the specifications of a Q-Lube
facility.  The renovation used student painters and carpenters from
other vocational training courses and Job Corps provided additional
funding for this course.  Q-Lube donated the equipment to the center
and also provided a trained instructor.  The course offering is
identical to the program curriculum Q-Lube teaches at non-Job Corps
sites.  According to Labor officials, since the implementation of
this initiative, Q-Lube has become a major employer and training link
within the region. 

The same regional office contacted a shipbuilding company advertising
for 500 shipbuilders and worked with the company to develop a
vocational training program in welding for Job Corps students that
would be appropriate and relevant to the company's needs.  The
company provided the two pieces of equipment needed for training
purposes.  Students were trained at the Job Corps center under
conditions similar to those in the shipbuilding environment, tested
by the company, and then provided additional training at the
shipbuilding site.  In addition, the company provided low-cost
housing and full salary to students who passed the test before
graduating from the center.  The company was pleased with the
students' qualifications, attitudes, and work ethics and requested
that the Job Corps program train another 100 students.  The region is
currently recruiting and training students for this vocation in an
attempt to further meet the needs of the shipbuilding industry. 

A third regional office is involved in a project to increase the
involvement of employers in all facets of Job Corps operations in
their region, including curriculum development, customized training,
work-based learning, mentoring, identifying workforce needs, and
donating staff resources and equipment.  The goal of this outreach
campaign is to build substantial relationships between Job Corps and
the employer community at several different but mutually supportive
levels:  center, state, regional, and national.  Labor selected a
contractor through a competitive process, assisted by several
national groups, to research, test, and revise its proposed strategy
for increasing employer involvement within the region.  Initially,
the project concentrated on three centers in different states within
the region.  The project will soon expand to include all states and
Job Corps centers within the region.  If successful, the project will
be expanded throughout the Job Corps system. 

      LOCAL JOB CORPS CENTERS
      DEVELOP THEIR OWN LINKAGES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

Job Corps centers have also independently established linkages with
employers.  These linkages include negotiating with employers to
provide furniture and vocational training equipment and contracting
with employers to train and hire program participants.  For example,
at one center a national employer has donated computers, copy
machines, desks, chairs, and conference tables valued at
approximately $50,000.  At another center, an automobile maker has
donated a four-wheel-drive sport utility vehicle for students in the
auto repair vocational training course in an attempt to make the
training more relevant to the vehicles that students would actually
be working on.  The center is currently working with the automobile
maker to donate a car for the same purpose.  Local automobile dealers
are familiar with the center's linkages to the national automobile
maker and also have donated cars needing repair.  In addition, local
automobile dealers have trained students through the school-to-work
program and have hired many of the Job Corps program participants. 

Another center holds monthly employer relations meetings in which
approximately 200 local employers and community representatives
attend a luncheon catered by the center's culinary arts students. 
Speakers discuss local employment opportunities and donate funds to
benefit Job Corps participants.  The funds, which are managed by the
center's Community Relations Council, are used to provide tuition
scholarships for program graduates continuing their education upon
completion from the center.  The scholarships range from $500 to
$1,000 each and are awarded to program graduates who have pursued
excellence and attained a higher measure of success than their fellow
program participants.  To date, about $10,000 has been raised for
scholarships. 

A fourth center established an effective business relationship with a
computer graphics firm in California.  According to center officials,
31 Job Corps students enrolled in various vocational training
programs, including building and apartment maintenance, clerical,
electrical, and landscaping; participated in 12-week internships at
the computer firm; and attended an anger management course that had
been developed for the firm's employees.  These students earned $10
per hour within a work-based environment in which the firm's staff
provided on-the-job training and mentoring.  The center placement
official claims that the success of the internship program is
evidenced by the 28 students who obtained primarily training-related
jobs after terminating from the Job Corps program. 

   TWO JOB CORPS PROGRAM MEASURES
   ARE MISLEADING AND OVERSTATE
   PROGRAM SUCCESS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Two performance indicators that Labor uses to evaluate Job Corps'
success are misleading, overstating the extent to which vocational
training is completed and job placements are training-related.  Labor
reports that nationwide about 48 percent of all program participants
complete their vocational training and that about 62 percent of the
jobs obtained by program participants are related to the training
they received.  However, we found that nationally only about 14
percent of the program participants satisfied all their vocational
training requirements and that about 41 percent of the reported
training-related job placements at the five centers we visited were
questionable.  Having complete and accurate program performance
information is important to evaluating program success and being able
to identify areas needing improvement.\6

--------------------
\6 In GAO/HEHS-95-180, June 30, 1995, we also questioned the validity
of 15 percent of the reported placements we sampled at six centers. 

      VOCATIONAL COMPLETION DOES
      NOT MEAN VOCATIONAL TRAINING
      WAS COMPLETED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Nationally, Job Corps reported that in program year 1996, 48 percent
of its participants completed vocational training.  This information
is misleading.  We found that only about 14 percent of the program
year 1996 participants actually completed all the required tasks of
their vocational training programs.  Job Corps' national data system
uses three categories to identify a participant's level of vocational
training progress:  trainee, completer, and advanced completer.  A
trainee is a participant who has not completed any vocational
training component, a completer has accomplished at least one
component of a vocational program, and an advanced completer has
fully satisfied all required components of a vocational training
program.  Labor considers participants in the last two categories to
be vocational training completers.  Thus, Job Corps vocational
completion statistics include participants who have only partially
completed the required skills of a vocational training program.\7

Each Job Corps vocational training program has a comprehensive list
of duties and tasks that participants are expected to perform.  For
example, the clerical vocational training program has 140 duties and
tasks that must be mastered to fully complete the program, food
service has 109, building and apartment maintenance has 123, and
carpentry has 75.  Vocational training programs, however, can be
divided into several components.  For example, in food service, the
first component entails making a sandwich and preparing a salad
(covering 39 of the 109 tasks).  The second component adds preparing
breakfast dishes; heating convenience foods; preparing meats,
poultry, fish, and pasta; and cooking vegetables.  The final
component adds preparing soups, sauces, and appetizers as well as
food management skills, such as preparing a menu, setting a table,
developing a food preparation schedule, and conducting safety
inspections. 

Vocational training instructors assess participants' performance for
each duty and task, and Job Corps policy permits participants to be
classified as vocational completers if they accomplish the duties and
tasks associated with any one component of the vocational training
program--regardless of whether they can perform all the duties and
tasks required in the entire vocational training curriculum. 
Depending on the vocation, the percentage of tasks that a participant
must accomplish to be considered a completer range from virtually
all, as in the health occupations program, to about a quarter, as in
the welding program (see table 2). 

                          Table 2
          
          Tasks Participants Must Accomplish to Be
            Considered Vocational Completers in
           Selected Vocational Training Programs

                     Number of       Minimum
                      tasks to     number of
                         fully         tasks    Percentage
                      complete   required of      of total
Vocation              training   a completer         tasks
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Health                     189           179            95
 occupations
Electrical                  79            56            71
Painting                    50            32            64
Auto repair                 59            36            61
Carpentry                   75            42            56
Building and               123            64            52
 apartment
 maintenance
Clerical                   140            67            48
Landscaping                167            71            43
Bricklaying                 64            26            41
Food service               109            39            36
Welding                    128            36            28
----------------------------------------------------------
Thus, Job Corps policy allows participants to be classified as
vocational completers if they can perform some portion of a required
curriculum.  For example, in the food service vocational training
program, accomplishing just the tasks associated with the salad and
sandwich making component would qualify a participant as a vocational
completer.  At the centers that we visited that had a food service
program, nearly half of the reported vocational completers had
completed only this first component.  Similarly, nearly 80 percent of
the vocational completers in the carpentry program at five centers
completed only the first of three components.  In contrast, about 15
percent of the vocational completers of the centers' health
occupations program completed only the first of two components (see
fig.  1).  Overall at the five centers, 43 percent of the vocational
completers completed only the first component of their vocational
training programs. 

   Figure 1:  Vocational
   Completers Who Completed Only
   the First Component of Their
   Training for Selected Vocations
   at Five Centers

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The reported percentage of vocational completers at the five centers
we visited substantially overstated the percentage of participants
who fully completed their vocational training programs.  At these
centers, about 51 percent of the 3,500 participants were considered
to be vocational completers.  However, only about 18 percent
completed all their vocational training requirements.  As shown in
figure 2, the percentage of program year participants fully
completing vocational training programs ranged from about 11 percent
at one center to about 27 percent at another center.  Nonetheless,
these two centers had reported vocational completion rates of 65
percent and 73 percent, respectively. 

   Figure 2:  Reported and Full
   Completion Rates for Vocational
   Training Nationwide and at Five
   Job Corps Centers for Program
   Year 1996

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Closer examination of the participants who completed only the first
component of their vocational training program showed that many spent
a short period of time--less than 90 days--enrolled in vocational
training.  At the five centers that we visited, nearly 15 percent of
the participants who had completed the first component of their
vocational training spent fewer than 90 days in training.  This
ranged from about 9 percent at one center to about 20 percent at
another center. 

--------------------
\7 Placement in a job is not dependent on a participant's completing
any of the required skills of a vocational training program.  Job
Corps requires placement contractors to assist all participants with
placement, regardless of how long they were in the program or the
reason they left. 

      JOB TRAINING MATCH
      STATISTICS ARE NOT
      MEANINGFUL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Labor reported that in program year 1996, 62 percent of participants
placed in employment found jobs that matched the training they
received in Job Corps.  Our review of this information at the five
centers we visited, however, suggests that this report substantially
overstates the program's accomplishments.  We found that the validity
of about 41 percent of the reported job training matches at these
centers was questionable. 

In a previous report, we expressed concern with Labor's methodology
for identifying training-related placements.\8 We concluded that
Labor gave its placement contractors wide latitude in deciding
whether a job was a job training match and identified many jobs that
appeared to bear little, if any, relationship to the training
received.  We also noted that placement contractors used some
creativity when reporting job titles in order to obtain a job
training match.  Labor questioned the accuracy of claims made by
placement contractors that job training matches could be obtained for
participants trained as bank tellers, secretaries, and welders who
obtained jobs in fast food restaurants. 

In checking reported job training match information, we reviewed all
reported training-related job placements at the five centers we
visited to assess the validity of reported job training matches.  We
verified the results by contacting a representative sample of
employers who had hired the Job Corps participants.\9 In this
process, we questioned a significant number of the claimed matches. 
We questioned job training matches because either a job title did not
seem appropriate for the employer listed (such as bank teller at a
fast food restaurant) or the job title did not seem to relate to the
vocational training (such as a job as an information clerk at a car
rental agency after training as a home health aide).  We then
interviewed a random sample of 183 employers who hired Job Corps
participants whose job placement was listed as related to the
vocational training they received but that we questioned.\10 Table 3
shows additional questionable examples of jobs reported as being
training-related. 

                          Table 3
          
             Examples of Reported Job Training
                   Matches We Questioned

Vocational
training            Placement job       Employer
------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Accounting          Bank teller         Cable Car
                    Linen room          Cleaners
                    attendant           Sheraton Hotel

Auto repair         Detailer            Vintage Car Wash
                    Wash boy            Mesa Ford

Bricklaying         Janitor             Waffle House
                    Material handler    Roger's
                                        Supermarket

Carpentry           Municipal           Piggly Wiggly's
                    maintenance         grocery store
                    worker              Ro-An Jewelers
                    Stone polisher

Clerical            Bank teller         McDonald's
                    Cashier             Dunkin Donuts

Diesel mechanic     Laundry machine     Elks Lodge
                    washer              K-Mart
                    Stock checker

Electronic          Car wash            Vintage Car Wash
assembly            attendant           Baskin-Robbins
                    Machine cleaner

Food service        Housekeeper         Pilar De La Torre
                    Personal attendant  Consuelito's
                                        Boutique

Home health aide    Appointment clerk   Vision Dry
                    Information clerk   Cleaning
                                        Alamo Car Rental

Hotel or motel      Fast food worker    McDonald's
clerk               Ticket seller       Regal Theaters

Medical assistant   Information clerk   Delia's
                    Sanitarian          Restaurant
                                        Wendy's

Painting            Janitor             McDonald's
                    Material handler    Federal Express

Plumbing            Assembler           Sealy Mattress
                    Material handler    UPS

Welding             Material handler    Popeye's Chicken
                    Utility worker      KC Pools
----------------------------------------------------------
At the five centers we visited, we questioned 598 of the 1,306
reported job training matches.  The percentages of these questionable
job training matches ranged from about 30 percent at one center to
about 64 percent at another center (see fig.  3). 

   Figure 3:  Reported and
   Questionable Training-Related
   Job Placement Rates at Five Job
   Corps Centers

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Reported rates are the full bar heights. 

Our discussions with employers yielded examples of jobs that, on the
surface, were related to the training received, based on the reported
job title, but were actually quite unrelated to this training.  For
example, one participant trained in welding was reported as obtaining
a job as a welding machine operator at a temporary agency, but the
employer informed us that this individual was actually hired to
shuttle vehicles between airports.  Another participant trained in
auto repair was reportedly hired as a petroleum and gas laborer but
was actually hired to clean residential homes.  A third participant
received clerical training and was reportedly hired as a sales
correspondent but actually sorted bad tomatoes from good ones on a
conveyor belt.  All three of these Job Corps participants, therefore,
were erroneously reported as having been placed in jobs related to
their training. 

Labor's monitoring of reported job training matches appears to be
inadequate.  Labor officials stated that Job Corps' regional offices
are responsible for monitoring all aspects of placement contractor
performance but that there is no fixed schedule for such monitoring. 
They stated that regular desk reviews of all placement forms, for
both accuracy and completeness, takes place as part of the process
for paying vouchers submitted by placement contractors.  Our findings
suggest that there is reason to question whether this procedure is
adequate to ensure that reported information is accurate. 

--------------------
\8 GAO/HEHS-98-1, Oct.  21, 1997. 

\9 We identified 598 questionable job training matches at the five
centers.  We contacted a random sample of 183 of the listed employers
to verify information about the reported job placement and used the
results of this sample to estimate the number of questionable
matches.  We estimate, at the 95-percent confidence level, that
between 519 and 563 job training matches are questionable at the five
centers. 

\10 We also question Job Corps' policy of providing an automatic job
training match for any individual enlisting in the military,
regardless of the assigned duties.  At the five centers, military
enlistments accounted for about 5 percent of the reported job
training matches, although at one center about 13 percent of the
reported job training matches were for military enlistments. 
However, we did not include these reported job training matches in
our questionable category. 

   LABOR'S JUSTIFICATION FOR SOLE
   SOURCE CONTRACTING IS
   INADEQUATE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Labor has contracted with national labor and business organizations
under sole source arrangements for more than 30 years.  About a third
of Job Corps' vocational training is provided by such organizations
contracted under sole source arrangements.  Although Labor has failed
to provide adequate support to justify sole source procurement for
vocational training, it has nine sole source contracts with national
labor and business organizations, totaling about $46 million (see
table 4). 

                          Table 4
          
           Labor's National Training Contractors

                           Year of      Latest   Number of
                           initial       award    training
Contractor                   award  (millions)       slots
------------------------  --------  ----------  ----------
AFL/CIO Appalachian           1974        $4.2         542
 Council
Home Builders Institute       1974        13.5       4,090
International                 1969         4.1       1,280
 Brotherhood of Painters
 and Allied Trades
International Masonry         1971         3.5         910
 Institute
International Union of        1966         2.5         450
 Operating Engineers
National Plasterers and       1970         5.3       1,440
 Cement Masons
 International
 Association
Transportation-               1972         4.2         380
 Communication
 International Union
United Brotherhood of         1968         6.3       2,260
 Carpenters and Joiners
 of America
United Auto Workers           1978         2.5         396
==========================================================
Total                                    $46.1      11,748
----------------------------------------------------------
Federal procurement regulations require several conditions to be met
for an agency to award a noncompetitive contract.  These include (1)
establishing the need for services that can be provided by only one
source, (2) documenting through a market survey or on some other
basis that no other known entity can provide the required services,
and (3) stating a plan of action the agency may take for removing
barriers to competition in the future. 

Labor has offered three broad considerations in justifying its sole
source awards rather than using competitive procedures in contracting
with the national training contractors.  The first is the
contractors' past relationship with Job Corps--that is, experience
with Labor's Employment and Training Administration, in general, and
with Job Corps specifically and thorough knowledge of Job Corps'
procedures and operations.  The second is organizational
structure--that is, a large nationwide membership related to a trade
and their strong relationship with national and local apprenticeship
programs.  The third is instructional capability--that is, a
sufficiency of qualified and experienced instructors, the ability to
provide training specifically developed for the learning level of Job
Corps students, and the ability to recognize training as credit
toward meeting the requirements of becoming a journey-level worker. 
In addition, Labor officials stated that a main reason it contracts
on a sole source basis is that the contractors maintain an extensive
nationwide placement network. 

With regard to Labor's long-standing practice of awarding sole source
contracts for a portion of Job Corps' vocational training, our review
of Labor's current and proposed justification for its sole source
contracts and our previous work on this issue raise questions about
their use.\11 Labor's sole source justification essentially lists the
qualities Labor expects in a contractor.  It does not establish that
the services contracted for can be provided by only one source. 
Furthermore, Labor acknowledged that its national data system has no
information to indicate the extent to which national training
contractors are directly responsible for placing Job Corps
participants in jobs.  Labor's proposed justification for upcoming
contracts has many of the weaknesses of the current justification. 

--------------------
\11 GAO/HEHS-95-180, June 30, 1995. 

   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Job Corps is an expensive job training program that provides
comprehensive services to a severely disadvantaged population.  For
more than 30 years, Job Corps has been assisting young people who
need and can benefit from an unusually intensive program, operated
primarily in a residential setting.  Labor and the Congress need
meaningful and accurate information if they are to effectively manage
and oversee the Job Corps program.  However, our work raises serious
questions regarding Labor's claims about Job Corps' achievements. 
Labor's reporting on the percentage of participants who are
vocational completers includes many who have not actually completed
their training; many have completed only one component of a
vocational training program.  Similarly, Labor's reported statistics
on the percentage of jobs obtained by participants that were related
to the training they received are inaccurate.  Reported job training
matches include a significant number of jobs that have no apparent
relationship to the training received and whose job titles have no
apparent relationship to the employers' business. 

In addition, Labor has continued its long-standing practice of
awarding sole source contracts for a substantial portion of Job
Corps' vocational training--a practice we suggested it re-evaluate in
1995.  To date, Labor has not provided adequate support to justify
sole source procurement for vocational training services provided by
the nine national labor and business organizations.  Labor's
justification for sole source procurement does not explain or
demonstrate the basis for Labor's determination of need. 

   RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
   SECRETARY OF LABOR
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

Improvements are needed to ensure that the information used to assess
Job Corps program performance is accurate and meaningful. 
Specifically, two of the measures used to judge the success of the
Job Corps program--vocational completion and job training
match--provide misleading information that overstates program
outcomes.  Therefore, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor

  -- more accurately define and report information on the extent to
     which program participants complete vocational training and

  -- develop a more accurate system of reporting training-related
     jobs and effectively monitor its implementation. 

In addition, because Labor has not presented adequate justification
for its long-standing practice of contracting on a sole source basis
with nine national labor and business organizations for vocational
training, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor properly justify
its use of noncompetitive procedures if it is to continue to award
contracts for vocational training services.  In so doing, the agency
should assess whether vocational training could be served as well
through contracts competed for locally or regionally. 

   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

In comments on a draft of this report, Labor expressed concern about
our conclusion that two performance measures--vocational training
completion and job training matches--overstated Job Corps' success
and misrepresented its accomplishments.  Nevertheless, Labor agreed
to implement our recommendations for improving the information
provided by these two measures. 

Labor emphasized that it did not intend to overstate Job Corps
program performance in any area.  Labor further noted that it places
strong emphasis on performance results and data integrity and is
therefore concerned about the findings contained in the report.  With
regard to vocational training completion, Labor stated that it was
never its intention that all students master all competencies on an
occupation's training achievement record.  Instead, a set of
competencies for each occupational area was developed by Labor,
together with industry groups, to identify appropriate competency
levels needed to qualify for particular occupations.  For example,
Labor noted that to qualify as a full mechanic would require
completion of all competencies in the automotive area, but a
participant could qualify as a mechanic's helper or brake repair
mechanic by completing a subset of the full automotive training
achievement record.  Labor also noted that even though vocational
completion may be an imperfect measure, it is a good predictor of
placement, job training match, and wages.  However, Labor stated that
it understood and shared our concern that the terminology used to
report this information may be subject to misinterpretation. 
Therefore, Labor said that it would take immediate action to clarify
the definition of vocational completion in all subsequent Job Corps
publications.  In addition, Labor noted that because of the
perspective gained through the recent oversight hearings and our
report, it would review the extent to which the current definition
may provide insufficient incentive to some students to obtain the
maximum amount of training within the vocational training program. 
Labor noted that in direct response to these issues, it has initiated
a comprehensive and detailed analysis of vocational completion and
stated that it will develop a more precise and comprehensive
description of student completion levels. 

We believe that the actions Labor is taking to more clearly identify
what it means by a vocational training completer will avoid future
confusion about what is being reported.  The actions will also
clarify that it is not Labor's intent to have all Job Corps
participants complete all aspects of a vocational curriculum but,
rather, to complete to a level that is appropriate for each
individual.  Such levels, as Labor noted, would correspond to
industry-agreed competencies that would qualify a participant for a
specific job.  In addition, as Labor clarifies and refines its
measures, it is likely that more will be learned about the
relationship between completing various levels of a vocational
program and the degree of success a participant achieves.  This is an
important aspect of monitoring performance and could lead to program
improvements. 

Regarding job training matches, Labor stated that it shares our
concern about the validity of some of the matches identified in the
report.  Labor noted that it is currently changing to a different
system for determining job training matches that will make the
determination more manageable and easier to oversee.  This new system
is expected to be fully implemented by the close of this calendar
year.  In addition, Labor stated that it is developing more stringent
quality control and oversight procedures to preclude questionable
matches. 

We believe Labor's proposed improvements to its assessment of whether
job placements are related to the participants' training and the
monitoring of the reporting of these data will improve the validity
and utility of this information. 

Regarding Labor's use of sole source contracting with nine national
labor unions and business organizations, Labor disagreed that it
needed to do more to properly justify its use of noncompetitive
procedures and expressed its belief that Job Corps' training programs
could not be served as well through locally or regionally competed
procurements.  Labor asserts that participants leaving national
training contractor programs consistently achieve better outcomes,
such as higher wages, than other participants.  Labor also points out
that it has received negligible responses to the last two invitations
for interested organizations to submit capability statements for the
administration and operation of vocational training programs and
placement activities currently operated by national organizations. 
Labor contends that the continued strong performance of its sole
source contracts and the lack of response to its attempts to solicit
other qualified providers properly justify its decision to use
noncompetitive procedures.  Labor identified some changes, however,
including that it will require the national contractors to report
monthly on the number of participants who are placed directly into
jobs and apprenticeships, and it has established higher performance
standards for national training contractors. 

We continue to believe that Labor has not adequately justified its
use of sole source contracts.  Labor has been unable to determine the
extent to which national training contractors are responsible for
placing participants and thus for their reported better performance. 
However, Labor's new requirement for these contractors to report on
their placements should improve Labor's ability to assess their
performance.  From our review of Labor's last two invitations for
organizations to submit capability statements for the administration
and operation of vocational training programs and placement
activities, we conclude that the agency did not clearly state the
goods and services required and was overly restrictive with respect
to contractor qualifications.  Thus, we believe that the two
published invitations Labor cites were inadequate to inform
potentially capable entities of an opportunity to compete or to
afford them a reasonable opportunity to provide credible responses. 
As a result, Labor has not determined the availability of other
potential sources and, therefore, has not properly justified its use
of noncompetitive procedures. 

In addition, Labor suggested two points of technical clarification
regarding the approval process that Job Corps centers use to change
vocational offerings and the involvement of the national office in an
employment initiative in one Job Corps region.  We modified the
report where appropriate.  (Labor's entire comments are printed in
app.  III.)

---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, relevant
congressional committees, and others who are interested.  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 R.  Nilsen at (202)
512-7003.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
IV. 

Sincerely yours,

Carlotta C.  Joyner
Director, Education and Employment Issues

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

We designed our study to collect information on the process the
Department of Labor uses to obtain vocational training services for
the Job Corps program and to identify efforts to ensure that
vocational training is appropriate and relevant.  We also sought to
determine the extent to which program participants were completing
their vocational training and obtaining jobs related to that training
upon leaving the program.  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 centers--five
established centers and one recently opened center. 

We augmented the information collected during the site visits with
data from Labor's Student Pay, Allotment, and Management Information
System, a database containing nationwide information on all Job Corps
participants.  We analyzed information on Job Corps participants
enrolled in program years 1995 and 1996, the two most recently
completed program years for which data were available from this
database.  We did not, however, verify these data. 

We also administered a telephone survey to employers of a random
sample of Job Corps participants who were reported as obtaining jobs
that were related to the training they received in Job Corps but that
we believed were questionable.  We performed our work between January
and July 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. 

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

We visited six centers that used a variety of methods to provide
vocational training and that served a majority of local
participants--those who resided within 100 miles of a center. 

                         Table I.1
          
                Job Corps Centers We Visited

Labor
region    Job Corps center    Location    Contractor
--------  ------------------  ----------  ----------------
I         Westover Job Corps  Chicopee,   The EC
          Center              Mass.       Corporation

II        Edison Job Corps    Edison,     Res-Care, Inc.
          Center              N.J.

IV        Gulfport Job Corps  Gulfport,   Resource
          Center              Miss.       Consulting, Inc.

IV        Memphis Job Corps   Memphis,    MINACT, Inc.
          Center              Tenn.

VI        David L. Carrasco   El Paso,    Texas
          Job Corps Center    Texas       Educational
                                          Foundation

IX        San Jose Job Corps  San Jose,   Career Systems
          Center              Calif.      Development
                                          Corporation
----------------------------------------------------------
At these centers, we interviewed center directors and other relevant
staff on vocational training activities, school-to-work efforts, and
business and community relations.  At five of the centers, we also
reviewed participant data on vocational completion status and
placement information.\12 Using the Dictionary of Occupational Titles
and reported placement information, we compared the jobs participants
reportedly obtained with the training they received to determine
whether the jobs and training were related.  We also contacted a
random sample of 183 employers to clarify reported job information. 

--------------------
\12 Because the Memphis Job Corps Center had recently opened, we did
not review any information on participant outcomes. 

   EMPLOYER SURVEY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

At each of the five established centers, we reviewed placement
information for every participant reported as having a job training
match.  The total number of reported job training matches ranged from
214 at one center to 369 at another center, for a total of 1,306.  We
classified each reported job training match into one of three
categories:  (1) good match, (2) questionable match, and (3)
military.  We considered all jobs listed in category 3 as being good
matches.  Using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
sampling routine, we selected a simple random sample for each center
of reported job training matches that we classified as questionable. 
The populations and sample sizes in this category for the five
centers are shown in table I.2. 

                         Table I.2
          
           Population and Sample Sizes by Center

                  Reported job
                      training  Questionable
Job Corps center       matches       matches   Sample size
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
David L.                   214            64            38
 Carrasco
Edison                     229           115            52
Gulfport                   215           138            57
San Jose                   279           111            54
Westover                   369           170            61
==========================================================
Total                    1,306           598           262
----------------------------------------------------------
During our survey, we asked employers to confirm the reported job
title, identify the appropriate job title, if different, and describe
the primary duties and responsibilities for the job for which the
participant was hired.  During the summer of 1998, we telephoned the
employers for 262 reported job training matches.  We made at least
three attempts to contact each employer.  After repeated calls, we
were unable to reach or interview 79 employers.  We were able to
reach and verify job information for the 183 other sample cases.  Of
these, 164 remained questionable after the discussion with the
employers, and the remaining 19 were moved to the "good match"
category. 

Given the results of our survey, we adjusted the number of
questionable reported job training matches at each of the five
centers as shown in table 1.3. 

                         Table 1.3
          
          Percentage of Questionable Job Training
            Matches at Five Centers Adjusted for
                       Sample Results

                                    Adjusted    Percentage
                  Reported job     number of  questionable
                      training  questionable     (sampling
Job Corps center       matches       matches      error %)
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
David L.                   214            56        26 (3)
 Carrasco
Edison                     229           106        46 (3)
Gulfport                   215           134        62 (3)
San Jose                   279            98        35 (4)
Westover                   369           147        40 (4)
==========================================================
Total                    1,306           541        41 (2)
----------------------------------------------------------
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 were administered the survey.  Because the whole
population was not surveyed, 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 responses. 
For this effort, center-level sampling errors were 3 to 4 percentage
points with an overall sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage
points at the 95-percent confidence level. 

   NATIONAL AND REGIONAL JOB CORPS
   OFFICES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

We interviewed Labor officials at both the national and regional
offices to obtain an overview of the vocational contracting process
and information about initiatives to improve the relationship between
Job Corps vocational training and employers' needs.  We also
collected information on the contracting process, including
information on the sole source procurement of national training
contracts. 

DATA SUPPORTING REPORT FIGURES
========================================================== Appendix II

                         Table II.1
          
           Reported and Full Completion Rates for
           Vocational Training Nationwide and at
             Five Centers for Program Year 1996

                                                Vocational
                                                completers
                                           completing only
                                          one component of
Vocational training program                       training
--------------------------------------  ------------------
Auto repair                                            23%
Building and apartment maintenance                      38
Carpentry                                               79
Clerical                                                67
Electrical                                              70
Food service                                            47
Health occupations                                      15
Welding                                                 29
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  These are data for figure 1. 

                         Table II.2
          
           Reported and Full Completion Rates for
           Vocational Training Nationwide and at
          Five Job Corps Centers for Program Year
                            1996

                      Percentage of participants
            ----------------------------------------------
                Vocational            Full         Partial
Center          completers      completers      completers
----------  --------------  --------------  --------------
National               48%             14%             34%
Center A                73              27              46
Center B                65              11              54
Center C                45              20              25
Center D                44              22              22
Center E                41              13              28
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  These are data for figure 2. 

                         Table II.3
          
            Reported and Questionable Training-
           Related Job Placement Rate at Five Job
            Corps Centers for Program Year 1996

                                          Training-related
                      Jobs reported as       jobs that are
Job Corps Center      training-related        questionable
------------------  ------------------  ------------------
A                                  64%                 26%
B                                   69                  35
C                                   68                  40
D                                   55                  62
E                                   58                  46
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  These are data for figure 3. 

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

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

Now on p.  20. 

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================== Appendix IV

GAO CONTACTS

Sigurd R.  Nilsen, Assistant Director (202) 512-7003
Wayne J.  Sylvia, Evaluator-in-Charge (617) 565-7492

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition to the contacts named above, the following persons made
important contributions to the report:  Barry Bedrick, Robert
Crystal, Wayne Dow, Christopher Galvin, Sylvia Shanks, and Christine
Shine. 

RELATED GAO PRODUCTS

Job Corps:  Vocational Training Performance Data Overstate Program
Success (GAO/T-HEHS-98-218, July 29, 1998). 

Job Corps:  Participant Selection and Performance Measurement Need to
Be Improved (GAO/T-HEHS-98-37, Oct.  23, 1997). 

Job Corps:  Need for Better Enrollment Guidance and Improved
Placement Measures (GAO/HEHS-98-1, Oct.  21, 1997). 

Job Corps:  Where Participants Are Recruited, Trained, and Placed in
Jobs (GAO/HEHS-96-140, July 17, 1996). 

Employment Training:  Successful Projects Share Common Strategy
(GAO/HEHS-96-108, May 7, 1996). 

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

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

*** End of document. ***