Lastly, WIA youth activities are coordinated through newly created state and local workforce investment boards. We found that nearly all of the youth councils were active by the start of program year 2000—the first WIA program year—and a majority of councils included the WIA-required members. Nationwide, 65 percent of local boards reported difficulty in getting youth members and 54 percent found it difficult to get parents of eligible youth to participate on the council. Most local boards reported that contracted service providers generally served youth directly at the providers’ facilities rather than at the one-stop centers in their local areas. Moreover, secondary and postsecondary schools were contracted to provide youth services, typically delivering services at the schools, or partnered with the one-stop centers to deliver youth services. In these communities, some school personnel were reluctant to incorporate workforce development activities into classroom learning because they did not want to broaden their role in youth development beyond education. Schools Were Used as Youth Service Providers and Worked with One-Stop Centers

In all the sites we visited, youth councils developed various strategies to link with the education community including contracting with schools as service providers and partnering schools with the one-stop centers to deliver youth services. According to state and local officials, ambiguous definitions and lags in data availability complicated the measurement and reporting of some WIA youth performance indicators and resulted in inconsistencies in reporting and comparing outcomes within and across states. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the availability of information on WIA youth programmatic, administrative, and other implementation issues and to enhance implementation of state and local workforce investment systems, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor issue guidance and provide assistance to state and local boards and youth councils by developing and disseminating strategies to effectively recruit and engage parents, youth, and business community representatives on the youth council; to increase the number of responses to competitive requests for proposals by encouraging youth-serving organizations new to WIA to participate in the youth program and promoting new ways of collaboration among new and existing service providers; to obtain and verify applicant eligibility information by sharing client information among agencies or using existing electronic databases (for example, DOL should consider exploring methods to extend eligibility automatically for WIA based on an applicant’s participation in other programs);to recruit and retain out-of-school youth to the WIA youth program and all youth into the one-stops; and to facilitate linkages between the board and youth council and their required youth-serving partners. Workforce Investment Act: New Requirements Create Need for More Guidance.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 substantially changed the way youth workforce development services are configured and delivered. The act requires states and localities to create a more comprehensive workforce system for development needs. The act promotes partnerships among diverse programs and community representatives through participation on newly created state and local workforce investment boards and youth councils.

What GAO Found

GAO found that most youth councils nationwide included the required members and nearly all councils were active by July 2000. Local boards competitively chose youth service providers and developed strategies for one-stop centers. Most boards reported that services were provided through contracted service providers rather than one-stop centers. However, local boards had difficulty getting parents and youth to participate on youth councils. Some local areas found it difficult to identify and select youth service providers because of low response to requests for proposals. Getting youth to visit the typically adult-focused one-stop centers was also difficult. Youth councils linked with the education community by including representatives of local school districts and existing school-board career programs in their membership or as youth service providers. Moreover, secondary and postsecondary schools contracted to deliver mentoring and occupational skills training. Some educators, however, were hesitant to broaden their role in youth development beyond traditional academics and saw few financial incentives to partner with the youth council. GAO found three legislative requirements that impeded service delivery. First, eligibility documentation requirements may have excluded eligible at-risk youth from services. Second, difficulties in recruiting and retaining enough out-of-school youth to meet the 30 percent requirement that local funds be spent on these youth. Third, ambiguous definitions and lags in data availability resulted in inconsistent reporting and when comparing outcomes within and across states.