To assist youth transitioning to adulthood, direct services are provided at  the local level with the support of federal, state, local, and private funding  sources. Local Programs We Reviewed Differed in Their Funding Sources and Program Structure, yet Shared Some Characteristics

The 39 local programs we reviewed received funding from a range of  government and private sources, and differed in their program structure,  yet shared some specific characteristics. For example, some were  community-based organizations that provided services on a daily basis,  some were charter schools, and some offered residential living. All of the programs we reviewed were created to meet the  needs of local youth, such as addressing youth homelessness and high  school dropout rates. Most of these programs were well  established, with many providing services to youth for at least 10 years. Directors of the 39 Local Programs Cited Similar Key Elements in Reconnecting Youth to Educational and Employment Goals

While varying types of programs serve disconnected youth, directors of  the 39 local programs we reviewed identified similar key elements of their  programs that assist them in reconnecting youth to educational and  employment goals. Specific Program Design Components Help Programs to Engage and Retain Young People

Program directors incorporated a variety of specific design components to  help engage and retain youth, such as experiential learning opportunities,  engagement in civic activities, self-paced curricula and flexible schedules,  and financial and nonfinancial incentives. Directors We Interviewed Cited Service Gaps, Funding Constraints, and Federal Grant Management Challenges That Hindered Their Efforts; Federal Coordination Efforts Under Way May Help Address Some of These Issues

Program directors reported challenges addressing some of the issues  faced by youth in their programs as well as gaps in certain services, such  as housing and employment opportunities for youth. Most directors  reported that funding constraints from federal and other sources challenge  program stability and efforts to serve more youth. Performance Contracts Associated with Some Federal Funding May Have Unintended Consequences

Many of the 15 local program directors who received WIA Youth funding  reported that meeting the performance goals for which they were held  accountable within short-term contracts discouraged them from working  with low-skilled youth who may need increased time and assistance to  reach specified outcomes, such as employment or educational gains. Labor has taken some steps to address this problem. However, it has  not provided technical assistance more broadly on this issue. Labor officials said they have not yet established a time frame for  developing and issuing guidance on this. For example, among the  large workforce programs, workforce investment boards often award  1-year WIA contracts to local programs, and YouthBuild is now a 3-year  grant. (HHS)

Appendix II: Scope and Methodology

Our review focused on (1) the characteristics of programs that provide  services to disconnected youth, (2) the key elements of locally operated  programs that program directors attribute to their success in reconnecting  youth to education and employment, and (3) the challenges that are  involved in implementing and operating these programs and how federal  agencies are helping to address these challenges.
Why GAO Did This Study

While most young people successfully transition to adulthood, a significant number of youth are disconnected from school and employment. These youth are more likely than others to engage in crime, become incarcerated, and rely on public systems of support. Several federal agencies oversee a number of programs and grants that assist local programs in serving this population at the local level. GAO reviewed the following: (1) characteristics of locally operated programs that serve disconnected youth, (2) the key elements of locally operated programs to which directors attribute their success in reconnecting youth to education and employment, and (3) challenges involved in operating these programs and how federal agencies are helping to address these challenges. GAO interviewed officials from four federal agencies, experts, and directors of 39 local programs identified by agencies and experts as helping youth meet educational and employment goals.

What GAO Found

The 39 local programs GAO reviewed differed in their funding sources and program structure, yet shared some characteristics, such as years of experience serving youth. These programs received funding from multiple sources: federal, state, local, and private, although most relied on some federal funds. They were structured differently--for example, some were community-based organizations that provided services on a daily basis, some were charter schools, and some offered residential living. Most of the programs were created to address local concerns such as youth homelessness or dropout rates, and many had at least 10 years of experience serving youth. Program directors GAO interviewed attributed their success in reconnecting youth to education and employment to several key elements of their programs. These included effective staff and leadership; a holistic approach to serving youth that addresses the youth's multiple needs; specific program design components, such as experiential learning opportunities and self-paced curricula; and a focus on empowering youth. Many of the 39 local program directors reported common challenges in operating their programs--the complex circumstances of their participants, service gaps, funding constraints, and management of federal grants--that increased federal coordination efforts under way may help address. Most of the 15 directors that relied on Labor's Workforce Investment Act Youth funds reported that meeting performance goals within 1-year time frames that workforce investment boards often write into contracts hinders their ability to serve youth with great challenges, who may need more time to obtain skills. Labor officials reported that they intend for workforce investment boards to develop longer-term contracts to help programs serve hard-to-employ youth. Labor has provided limited technical assistance and is considering issuing guidance on this issue, but has not established a time frame to do so. Federal agencies have recently intensified their coordination efforts, which may help local programs faced with challenges managing across multiple federal grants.