For in-school youth, local boards provided summer employment  services linked to classroom learning more often than for out-of-school  youth, while services for this latter population more often included  occupational skills training and supportive services. Local boards reported  that most youth received services primarily from community organizations  and educational institutions. Labor reported that with  some exceptions, states chose to focus the majority of resources on in- school youth, and our survey showed that about 81 percent of local areas  served more in-school youth than out-of-school youth. Nationally, about   70 percent of youth served were in school, according to local boards we  surveyed. According to officials in four states that we visited, WIA youth programs  primarily targeted in-school youth because recruiting and retaining out-of- school youth for the WIA program was much more difficult and expensive. Over half of local boards nationwide used providers that did not deliver all  services themselves, using formal or informal subcontracting  arrangements to provide the range of services needed. The extent that  providers coordinated with others to deliver services was related to the  number of youth served in the local area. Labor’s Guidance Has Not Fully Addressed Implementation Challenges Faced by Local Areas

Local areas continue to face challenges in implementing aspects of the  WIA youth program despite guidance issued by Labor. We also had difficulty accessing and using the  Web site to find information. Lack of Program Evaluations and Questionable Performance Data Prevent Assessments of WIA Youth Program

Little is known about the effectiveness of the WIA youth program because  Labor has not yet initiated an impact evaluation, and results from a  planned evaluation will likely not be available until 2009, according to  Labor officials. They believed that poor  performance levels were due to problems with its information system,   not its workforce development system. In the first year, states will be required to validate their annual reports and  data submissions for the program year 2002 period. While the data validation initiative may improve the reliability of WIA  performance data, several implementation concerns remain. To assist state and local WIA youth programs address ongoing  implementation challenges, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor  increase availability of guidance and technical assistance to local areas  that continue to face challenges in serving out-of-school youth;   disseminate guidance, including specific strategies, to help local areas  provide effective mentoring services; and   develop additional guidance on providing follow-up services and using  interim measures to track program performance.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) has been in effect for several years and is currently undergoing reauthorization. In order to provide the Congress with information on the implementation and effectiveness of the WIA youth program, GAO was asked to explore how services have been delivered at the local level, whether the Department of Labor's guidance has addressed challenges faced by local areas, and how effective the program has been.

What GAO Found

Local areas primarily used the WIA program for dropout prevention and other efforts to improve academic achievement for in-school youth. Nationally, about 70 percent of youth served were in school, but percentages ranged from 38 to 86 percent by state. Officials in the five states GAO visited said that they focused on in-school youth because serving out-of-school youth was much more difficult and expensive, and less effective. Local areas emphasized learning-related summer employment for in-school youth and occupational skills training and supportive services for out-of-school youth. Over half of local boards nationwide used providers that had subcontracting arrangements with others to deliver youth services. The majority of youth were served primarily from educational institutions and community organizations. Despite Labor's guidance, local areas continue to face implementation challenges in identifying and retaining out-of-school youth, providing youth with mentoring and follow-up services, and using interim measures for ongoing program assessment. While Labor supports information exchange forums, a promising practices Web site, and technical assistance, some local areas may have difficulties gaining access to and using these resources. Little is known about the effectiveness of the WIA youth program because Labor has not yet conducted an impact evaluation. In addition, while the youth program exceeded most of its performance goals, these data were questionable because of problems with state information systems and inadequate oversight of data quality. While states will be required to verify data, concerns remain about their ability to fully implement the requirement and Labor's ability to monitor implementation consistently.