Job Corps Eligibility Guidance Is Inadequate

We found that Job Corps’ policy guidance on two of its eligibility criteria was ambiguous and incomplete. As a result, the program’s eligibility process was not following all the requirements of the law or program regulations. Our statistical analysis provides some information about characteristics significantly related to the likelihood of remaining in the program for at least 60 days that Labor could use to design outreach efforts, establish priorities among applicants, or improve the retention rate for those who might otherwise leave the program early. Contractors With Higher Retention Rates Have Better Assessment Procedures

Of the 11 outreach and admissions contractors that we visited, those with higher retention rates (10 percent or fewer of their enrollees dropping out within the first 30 days) tended to have better procedures for identifying applicants with the commitment and motivation to remain in and benefit from the program. However, Labor does not have the information it needs to accurately assess the performance of its placement contractors. One of the measures held contractors accountable for placing participants who were realistically unemployable. Job Corps requires placement contractors to assist all terminees with placement regardless of how long they were in the program or the reason they left, and it has established the following standards to measure contractor performance:
70 percent of all terminees assigned to a contractor are to be placed,
70 percent of all placements are to be in full-time jobs, the average wage paid to participants placed in jobs is to be equal to or greater than a specified level, and
42 percent of all job placements are to be in occupations related to the training received. Training-Related Placement Measure Is Flawed

The job-training match measure is used to evaluate the effectiveness of vocational training programs and placement contractors by determining the percentage of jobs terminees obtain that matches the training they received while in Job Corps. Labor’s guidance gives placement contractors wide latitude in deciding whether a job placement was a job-training match. Placement contractors are responsible for recording this information. A common characteristic among these contractors was having staff who had only one responsibility—placing Job Corps participants. Between program years 1994 and 1996, Labor regional offices did not renew two-thirds (12 of 18) of the placement contracts they had with state employment service agencies (see table 3). Although Job Corps is a performance-driven program, the measures used to assess placement performance may not be meaningful and thus may not provide Labor with the information it needs to accurately assess placement contractor performance. We reviewed Job Corps legislation as well as Labor’s program regulations and policy guidance on program eligibility, outreach and assessment of individuals for participation in the program, and placement of participants after termination.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the Job Corps program's recruitment and placement contractors, focusing on: (1) whether Job Corps' policy guidance regarding eligibility criteria is consistent with the legislation and regulations; (2) how the use of recruiting contractors could be improved to increase participant retention in the program; and (3) how the use of placement contractors could be improved to enhance positive outcomes.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) Job Corps' policy guidance for 2 of the 11 eligibility criteria was ambiguous and incomplete, which has led to an eligibility determination process that fails to follow the requirements of the law and program regulations; (2) in GAO's visits to several outreach and admissions contractors, GAO found that those with higher retention rates follow procedures aimed at identifying applicants with the commitment and motivation to remain in and benefit from the program; (3) in GAO's analysis of participant characteristics, GAO identified certain characteristics significantly related to the likelihood of remaining in the program for at least 60 days; (4) the Department of Labor (DOL) could use some of these characteristics to design outreach efforts or to establish priorities among eligible applicants; (5) although Job Corps is a performance-driven program and DOL uses performance measures to make decisions on placement contractor renewal, two of the measures DOL used were not meaningful and, thus, DOL did not have the information it needed to accurately assess the performance of placement contractors; (6) placement measures held contractors responsible for placing individuals who may have received little or no benefit from the program or who demonstrated behavior that normally would be unacceptable to most employers; (7) the job-training match measure did not accurately portray the extent to which participants obtained jobs related to their vocational training because of the wide latitude placement contractors have in deciding whether a job is related to the training received and the creativity contractors used in recording the occupational titles of the jobs obtained; (8) one aspect of placement contractors' operations associated with better performance was having staff solely responsible for placing Job Corps participants; (9) seven contractors visited by GAO with high placement rates had staff solely responsible for placing Job Corps participants; (10) in contrast, four of the five contractors having lower placement rates had the same staff responsible for performing outreach and assessment as well as placement; and (11) as a result of its concern about performance, DOL has not renewed 12 of the 18 contracts with state agencies.