1). 3). Finally, citing resource  constraints, HUD has conducted limited on-site oversight of grantees. As a  result of a lack of verified and aggregated data or analysis and limited  oversight, HUD largely was unable to tell how well the individual  Youthbuild grantees performed. HUD Has Not Collected or Analyzed Data That Could Help It Assess Grantees

HUD requires grantees to submit performance reports, including closeout  reports, but HUD has not developed or fully utilized information— particularly from the closeout reports—that could help it assess  Youthbuild grantee programs and has lacked resources to conduct  comprehensive oversight of grantees. Furthermore, while closeout reports  require that some performance outputs be collected, including the number  of participants receiving GEDs or high-school diplomas, placed in jobs, or  entering higher education programs, the reports do not collect other  output information such as how many participants were placed in  construction-related employment. HUD officials cited a lack of resources as the primary reason for not  requiring the monitoring of a larger percentage of grantees. To augment limited existing data, we  analyzed information in 245 closeout reports, but the results cannot be  generalized to the entire program. Moreover, while closeout reports include impediments to success and  “best practices,” HUD did not systematically review this information or  share it with YouthBuild USA. As a result, the lack of follow-up data and  programwide evaluations make it very difficult to determine which  programs and strategies have worked best and assess the performance of  Youthbuild over time. Several officials further noted that it was  difficult to locate many participants after they had left the program. YouthBuild USA’s President told us  that she not only agreed that reviewing the closeout reports for problems  and “best practices” would be beneficial, but that she believes the closeout  reports needed to “be analyzed to get to the bottom line because the total  impact (outcomes) of a grant could not be determined from data provided  on a rolling quarterly basis.” As a result of not sharing the closeout  reports with YouthBuild USA, HUD may have missed opportunities to  improve the program as a whole and help grantees improve performance. Youthbuild Grantees Have Experienced Varied Success in Obtaining Outside Funding Sources, and Many Cited Continued HUD Funding as Crucial

Our analysis of available closeout reports showed that the grantees have  had varying success in obtaining additional funding sources. However,  success in obtaining additional funds varied widely, from 21 grants  reporting no additional funding sources to 40 reporting more than $1  million (see fig. Overall,  YouthBuild USA found that 60 percent of programs that HUD did not fund  for 2 consecutive years ceased operations, and 90 percent of programs not  funded for 3 consecutive years ceased operations. YouthBuild USA, also found that  grantees with continuous HUD funding achieved higher outputs, such as  GED attainments and job placements, than the ones that did not receive  one or more follow-on grants. Labor has experience in managing youth training and education programs  and collecting performance information, and Congress transferred  Youthbuild to Labor in part to better align the program with existing  federal workforce development and youth training programs. According to  YouthBuild USA officials, their data indicate that grantees with repeat  awards also produced better outcomes such as a higher level of job  placements. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the reporting and assessment of performance for Youthbuild  grantee programs and develop the bases for an overall assessment of the  program, we are making the following three recommendations:  that the Secretary of HUD analyze closeout reports by grant and share  information on identified problems and “best practices” with its technical  services contractor and Labor; that the Secretary of Labor develop and monitor post-program  performance outcome measures for the YouthBuild program, such as the  types of employment graduates attained and retained, wage rates, and  degrees or certifications received, and share the data with the grantees;  and that the Secretary of Labor consider whether multiyear funding could be  useful in helping YouthBuild grantees attract additional outside funding.
Why GAO Did This Study

Since 1993, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has provided funding for Youthbuild, a competitive grant program that trains and educates disadvantaged youth and helps build low-income housing. In 2006, Youthbuild was transferred to the Department of Labor (Labor) to better align the Youthbuild program with existing youth workforce and training programs. In response to concerns about the overall quality of Youthbuild, a Senate report directed GAO to assess the program. GAO's objectives included (1) evaluating how HUD assessed and oversaw the program, (2) determining what results the program achieved, and (3) assessing how successful grantees were in obtaining outside funding. GAO analyzed Youthbuild performance data, visited Youthbuild sites, and interviewed agency officials.

What GAO Found

While HUD requires grantees to report basic performance data, such as the number of program participants and graduates and job placements, HUD has not aggregated or analyzed the data and conducted limited oversight of grantees. According to HUD officials, they did not have staff available to analyze the closeout reports that grantees must submit, and a lack of resources also limited oversight of grantees. The monitoring HUD did primarily focused on compliance with program requirements such as documentation rather than on performance. As a result, HUD largely was unable to tell how the individual Youthbuild grantee programs performed. Limited outcome data preclude any overall assessment of the performance of the Youthbuild program; further, the few other analyses available such as the one GAO did in this study to augment limited existing data cannot be generalized programwide. GAO analyzed 245 closeout reports, representing 46 percent of the grantees or 12,863 participants. While GAO could determine percentages of participants who received high school diplomas or were placed in jobs, GAO could not determine outcomes over time, partly because the reports lacked baseline information and grantees were not required to and generally did not follow participants after graduation. Further, while closeout reports include information about impediments to program success and "best practices," HUD did not systematically review this information or share it with its primary technical assistance contractor. Consequently, the lack of programwide evaluations, follow-up data, and dissemination of best practices make it very difficult to assess the performance of Youthbuild over time and determine which programs and strategies have worked best. Reporting on post-program performance outcomes, such as the number of participants placed and retained in construction-related employment, could increase the value of the closeout reports and better measure program results. Labor officials indicated that they would consider including such measures for program reporting. Grantees had varying success in obtaining funds from outside sources, but YouthBuild USA data suggest that continued (multiyear) HUD funding was critical to sustaining grantee operations and attracting leveraged funds. Grantees' success in obtaining additional funds varied widely, from 21 grants reporting no additional funding sources to 40 reporting more than $1 million. While most grantees have generated outside funding, YouthBuild USA reported that most grantees have had difficulty continuing operations without continued HUD funding. Their data show that 90 percent of grantees ceased operations if not funded for 3 consecutive years by HUD. Further, YouthBuild USA also noted that grantees with follow-on HUD funding achieved better performance outcomes, such as higher rates of job placements, than grantees that did not receive subsequent HUD funding.