Many of the YO program components were based on practices that experts  have identified as effective for working with at-risk youth, and the design  of the program supported flexibility and invention at the local level. The Department contracted for a $24 million evaluation study that  included plans to estimate the impact of the program by comparing key  characteristics in the YO communities and comparable areas that did not  receive YO grants. Most grantees used a combination of approaches to provide  youth services, including collaborating with other organizations and, when  they deemed it necessary, developing services of their own. To reach hard- to-serve target population, grantees used a variety of recruiting techniques,  ranging from the conventional to the innovative. Grantees Used Program Design to Address Major Challenges, but Found Start-up Time to be Short

Grantees were able to address a variety of challenges in setting up the  program and delivering services to youth using local discretion, flexible  enrollment rules, and other aspects of the program’s design, but they and  others said a longer start-up period would have been beneficial. Conditions  in the communities such as violence and lack of jobs presented a  challenge to most grantees, but they took advantage of the local discretion  built into the program to develop strategies to address them. Grantees Felt Challenged to Set Up Program in Time Allotted, and More Planning Time Would Have Been Beneficial

The majority of grantees reported that finding or renovating centers was a  challenge. Grantees and Others Reported That Participants and Their Communities Made Progress, but the Program’s Impact Is Still under Study

Grantees and others reported that the participants and their communities  made advancements in education and employment; however, a formal  assessment of the program’s impact is still under study. In addition, the majority of grantees reported that  they made improvements in the youth service delivery systems in their  communities. This  type of comparative analysis would be necessary to determine if the  events reported by grantees and others would have occurred in the  absence of the program. Recommendation for Executive Action

To continue to improve efforts to serve at-risk youth and in order that  researchers can evaluate the quality of information and determine possible  impact of the program, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor take  the actions necessary to complete the impact analysis of the Youth  Opportunity Grant program and release the data and all related research  reports from the program’s evaluation. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Survey of Youth Opportunity Grant Program Directors

To learn about the implementation of the Youth Opportunity Grants, we  conducted a Web-based survey of all Youth Opportunity Grant Program  Directors. To view selected results of  the survey, go to GAO-06-56SP. Department of Labor Management Information System (MIS)

We used electronic data collected on the program by the Department of  Labor in a management information system (MIS) to describe the number  of youth in the program who achieved the Department’s goals for the  program, such as high school completion, college enrollment, and long- term education and employment placements.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Youth Opportunity Grant program (YO) represented an innovative approach to improving education and employment opportunities for at-risk youth by targeting resources in high poverty areas and incorporating strategies that experts have identified as effective for serving this population. The Department of Labor (the Department) awarded 36 grants in 2000, and the program continued for 5 years. The Department had used a similar approach on a smaller scale in previous programs, but little information is available on the impact of these other programs. In order to understand what can be learned from the Youth Opportunity Grant program, GAO examined the grantees' implementation of the program, challenges they faced, and what is known about the program's outcomes and impact. To view selected results from GAO's Web-based survey of the Program Directors, go to GAO-06-56SP (http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-56SP).

What GAO Found

Grantees used a variety of approaches to build the infrastructure of the YO program, provide services to at-risk youth, and conduct outreach efforts. While grantees set up centers and trained core staff to deliver services, they differed somewhat in their approaches, depending on circumstances within their communities. In addition, grantees employed a combination of strategies to provide youth services, including collaborating with other providers and inventing unique programming. To recruit this hard-to-serve target population, grantees used a range of techniques, from partnering with juvenile justice agencies, to combing malls for eligible youth. Fast program start up, conditions in their communities, and the characteristics and needs of the youth challenged the grantees;however they used features of the program design to address some of these difficulties. Many grantees struggled to set up the program, especially within the Department's time frame. In addition, grantees felt encumbered by the drugs, violence, and a lack of jobs in their communities as well as the obstacles facing their clients, such as low academic achievement and lack of family support. Grantees used the discretion and other components built into the program design to address many of these challenges. For example, in response to safety concerns, an urban grantee elected to provide transportation for youth attending evening events. However, grantees and others said more planning time would have been beneficial. Grantees and others reported that the youth and their communities made progress toward the YO program goals, but the program's impact is still under study. Grantees reported that they had enrolled about 91,000 youth nationwide, many of whom completed high school, entered college, or found employment after enrolling in the program. In addition, grantees and others said that the grants had benefited their communities. However, without an impact analysis, it is not known whether these events would have occurred in the absence of the program. The Department contracted for a $24 million evaluation of the program that included plans for an impact analysis; however, agency officials are unsure if the analysis will be completed.