oversight

Opportunities for Improving Training Results and Efficiency at the East Bay Skills Center, Oakland, California Under the Manpower Development and Training Act

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-02-10.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

              .
                         44:
                                          7/-                            _/I
                                                                            3

 REPORT TO THE CONGRESS                                                            ’

                                                  llllll!~lllllllllllllllllll\lillll”
                                                           LM095720




 Opportunities For Improving Training
 Results And Efficiency At The East
 Bay Skills Center; Oaklan,d, California
 Under The Manpower Development
 And Training Act              B-146879   ’




‘department   of Labor
 Department of Health, Education,
  and Welfare




 BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
 OF THE UNITED STATES


                                              SEB.lOJ971
                   COMPTROLLER      GENERAL     OF      THE    UNITED   STATES
                                  WASHINGTON,    D.C.     20548




     B- 146879




     To the President   of the Senate and the
Cl   Speaker  of the House of Representatives

              This is our report           on opportunities         for improving
                  results     and   efficiency      at the   East    Bay Skills Cen-       ,f/952   :
     traini$&      mI&:oc?
     ter in -Oaklana,
                   -. . _.__ California,       operated    jointly     by the Depart-
     ment of Labor and the Department                    of Health,      Education,
     and Welfare,        under the Manpower             Development         and Train-     2 I
-    ing Act.      Our review        was made pursuant             to the Budget and
     Accounting       Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Accounting                   and
     Auditing     Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67).

            Copies of this report    are being sent to the Director,
     Office of Management      and Budget; the Secretary   of Labor;
     and the Secretary    of Health,  Education, and Welfare.




                                                              Comptroller        General
                                                              of the United      States
CHAPTER                                                          Page

                      Individuals    completing training         41
                      Conclusions                                46
                      Recommendations to the Secretary of
                         Labor                                   46
                 Counseling services provided to trainees        48
                      Conclusions                                 50
                      Recommendations to the Secretary of
                         Health, Education,      and Welfare      51
                 Payments for unexcused absences                  52
                      Conclusions                                 53
                      Recommendation to the Secretary of
                         Labor                                    54
                 Assessing results       of program activities
                   and providing     follow-up    services to
                   trainees     in need of assistance            55
                      Conclusions                                57
                      Recommendation to the Secretary of
                         Labor                                   57

  6          PROGRAM MONITORINGAND EVALUATION BY FEDERAL
             AND STATE AGENCIES                                  59
                 Conclusions                                     62
                 Recommendation to the Secretaries of
                   Labor and of Health, Education, and
                   Welfare                                       62

  7          SCOPEOF REVIEW                                      64

APPENDIX
  I          Letter da&d September 23, 1970, from the
               Assistant  Secretary for Administration,
               Department of Labor, to the General Ac-
               counting Office                                   67




      .. .
                       Contents
                                                             Page

DIGEST                                                         1



  1      INTRODUCTIQN                                         6
             Manpower Development and Training Act            6
             Development of the institutional     train-
               ing program                                    7
             Manpower training skills     centers             9
             East Bay Skills Center                           9

  2      PROGRAM RESULTS                                     13
            Training provided                                14
            Training costs                                   16
            Results of training                              18

  3      TJNDERUTILIZATIONOF THE EAST BAY SKILLS
         CENTER                                              21
             Conclusions                                     25
             Recommendations to the Secretaries  of
               Labor and of Health, Education,  and
               Welfare                                       26

  4      PROGRESSTOWARDMOREEFFECTIVE FUNDING
         AND TRAINING PROCEDURES                             28
             Problems in project-by-project  funding         28
             Problems with courses designed along
               traditional  education lines                  31
             Changes in funding and training  proce-
               dures                                         32
             Conclusion                                      34
  5      IMPROVEMENTS     NEEDEDTO ENHANCEEFFECTIVENESS
         OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM                             36
             Selection     of individuals   for training     36
                  Voluntary    and involuntary    termina-
                     tions                                   40
                  Individuals     employed prior to com-
                     pleting   training                      41
    benefit  of independent     review of the performances    of the executive   agen-
    ties.   GAO selected    the East Bay Skills    Center for a review of activi-
    ties under the institutional       training program in response to this urg-
    ing.


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
    Following  are the principal  results    of the Center's            training   program
    during its 45-month operating    period.

      --About 3,350 trainees   enrolled     in vocational training  courses, and
         550 other trainees  obtained basic education     and prevocational  in-
         struction under a contract     with the local community action agency.

      --The average length of the courses completed in 1968 was about
         8 months, and the average cost of training a person was about                  $4,100.

      --Of the 2,826 trainees       who left the training courses during the pe-
         riod July 1967 through December 1969, 1,805 completed training       or
         left training     to accept employment and 1,021 left training  prior to
         completion    for various other reasons.

      --Follow-up     information    on the employment status of          430 of the 685
         trainees   who had enrolled      in courses completed in         fiscal   year 1968
         and had completed training         or accepted employment        prior   to complet-
         ing training      showed that about 67 percent of the           430 trainees   were
         working and 33 percent were not working.

      --According     to GAO's analysis  of changes in earnings for a random
         sample of former trainees,     about two thirds of the trainees  who were
         employed were earning at a higher rate than they were earning prior
         to training.

    The data which GAO obtained on program results      provides some insight
    into the accomplishments   of the Center.   However, the absence of ade-
    quate data on the employment status of former trainees         precluded GAO's
    arriving  at a conclusion  concerning  the Center's    overall    effectiveness.

    Space acquired,   renovated,   and equipped was designed to provide train-
    ing to 1,500 individuals     at one time.   However, from April 1966 to
    December 1969, the Center had an average monthly enrollment      of about
    490 trainees,   or only about 33 percent of the complement that the Cen-
    ter was desi‘gned to serve.

    Center    facilities   were not fully        used because

      --institutional      funding   for    skills   centers    was reduced,

      --provisions  were not made for other federally     supported organizations
         to use the facilities for their  training   programs (see p. 21).


                                           2
COMPTROLLERGENERAL'S                          OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING TRAINING
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS                        RESULTS AND EFFICIENCY AT THE EAST BAY
                                              SKILLS CENTER, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, UNDER
                                              THE MANPOWERDEVELOPMENTAND TRAINING ACT
                                              Department of Labor
                                              Department of Health, Education,  and
                                              Welfare B-146879


DIGEST
--_--_

WHY THE REVIEW WAS MADE

       The Manpow~~.,,n~vell,opment"aFcl Traini,ng.Act,,of  1962 authorizes  institu-
       tional,   or classroom-type,     training   for unemployed or underemployed
       persons who cannot be expected to secure full-time         employment without
       such training.

       Manpower training,s&&lJ~-Xc~enters        were established        in July 1968 by the
       DQ%?mmyTm%r               and Health,     Education,     and Welfare to help carry
       out the institutional      training   program.       In contrast      to most institu-
       tional    training  courses prior to July 1968--small             classes were held in
       public schools after      school hours--skills         centers generally       operate in
       former school buildings       or industrial     and warehouse structures           during
       the day and provide a large number of persons with training                    in a variety
       of occupations     and with work orientation,          counseling,      and job-placement
       services.

       Sixty-nine     skills   centers were operating   in October 1970.            Enrollments
       in skills    centers    accounted for 17 percent of all persons            in the insti-
       tutional   training     program in fiscal   year 1969.

       The Department of Labor, through agreement with State employment security
       agencies,    determines      the occupations      for which persons are needed, se-
       lects the persons to be trained,           pays them training      allowances,     and helps
       them find employment.           The Department of Health,       Education,   and Welfare,
       through agreements with State vocational              education   agencies,    provides
       the curriculum,      instructors,     and facilities      for the courses to be taught.

       The General Accounting          Office's  (GAO'S) review covered the !raininq       ac-
       tivities_~f~,~~~~-~-~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~a~d.,-~~Ca.l-ifornla.                    From
       April 1966--about        2 years prior to its official      designation  as a skills
       center--through        December 1969, the Center incurred       costs of about
       $14.9 million        and provided training    to about 3,900 persons.

 -:?   The Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,  in reporting  on the ‘J^:II~~
       1968 amendments to the Manpower Development and Training   Act, urged GAO
       to broaden its evaluation of manpower programs to give the Congress the
      --take appropriate          action to convert the funding of the Center's
         operations      to an annualized          basis,  institute     a more flexible    cur-
         riculum design to permit continuous                 trainee   intake and exit from
          the Center's     trai'ning      courses,     and group together      related   occupa-
          tional  training      courses to allow-trainees            to progress as far as
         they are able within           the groupings.         (See p. 35.)

      --allocate      the necessary         funds to ensure             that   Center         operations     are
         monitored      adequately.         (See p. 62.)

    The Secretary        of Labor   should        also

      --direct     the employment security        agency (1) to be appropriately             selec-
         tive in screening      individuals     for skill     training,       (2) to refer per-
         sons with serious physical          handicaps or emotional           problems,   when
         possible,     to programs designed to overcome their               particular    problems
         rather    than to training     programs for which they are not suited,                 and
          (3) to prov'dI e persons qualified        to accept employment without             train-
         ing with appropriate       job-placement      assistance       rather    than with train-
         ing.     (See pa 46.)
      --review   the implementation   of the Center's    revised attendance proce-
         dure to ensure that trainees    do not receive allowance payments for
         periods of unexcused absence.      (See p. 54.)

      --to the extent feasible within       existing    fund limitations,      require
          the employment security   agency to obtain information          on the status
          of former trainees  and, where the need for assistance           is indicated,
          provide termi‘nees with follow-up     services.     (See p. 57.)

    The Secretary  of Health,   Education,    and Welfare should also examine
    into the nature and extent of counseling services currently            provided
    at the Center,   furnish  appropriate   guidelines     concerning   the case-load
    levels and the frequency    of counseling    contacts,    and emphasize to the
    Center the importance    of adequate documentation       of counseling    services.
     (See p. 51.)


AGENCYACTIONS AND UNRESOLVED
                           ISSUES

    The Department of Labor and the Department of Health,  Education, and
    Welfare advised GAO of their general agreement with the recommendations
    and outlined  corrective actions to

      --encourage      full   utilization          of all      skills      centers      (see p.       26),

      --provide    for     funding all skills   centers on an annualized  basis, a
         more flexible        curriculum design, and the grouping of related    train-
         ing courses       (see p. 35),

      --improve      the procedures         for    selecting        individuals         for     training     (see
         P* 47).
      --the Center's    method of funding its training   courses on a project-by-
          project basis was causing delays in initiating     follow-on training
          courses after  pri‘or courses had been completed (see p. 28), and

      --the design of the training      courses did not readily     permit new
          trainees  to enter into training    positions  made available    through
          attrition   as the courses were proceeding    (see p. 31).

    Persons referred      to the Center for training        frequently  did not meet the
    enrollment   criteria    that a person be in need of training          to obtain em-
    ployment.   Some trainees         were physically   or emotionally    handicapped;    and
    some appeared to have possesseds at the time they were referred                  for
    training,  sufficient      skills     to obta in employment without    training.     (See
    P* 36.)
    The Center's    counseling    program was designed to help the trainees        plan
    their vocational     goals and to assis t them with personal problems that
    would hinder their      progress in getting    a job.   Only limited   counseling
    services,    however, were provided and records frequently         were not main-
    tained on the counseling        that had been.provided.     (See p. 48.)

    Contrary  to the Manpower Development and Training    Act and to Department
    of Labor directives,  many trainees  were paid training   allowances for
    unexcused absences.   (See p. 52.)

    Local employment security        offices    are expected to maintain         contact with
    trainees    and their    employers after     completion     of training,     render fur-
    ther assistance      that may be needed, and evaluate the effectiveness                of
    the training    program to provide a basis for making program changes.                    The
    local employment security         agency did not develop needed information              on
    the status of trainees       who left    the Center for employment and did not
    provide these trainees       with such follow-up        services    as additional    train-
    ing and placement services.           (See p. 55.)

    GAO believes  that the administrative      weaknesses noted in its review
    could have been identified     and corrected   earlier through more appropri-
    ate and timely monitoring     by the two Federal Departments   and their  State
    counterparts.    (See p. 59.)


RECOIdVENDATIONS
              OR SUGGESTIONS
    The Secretaries     of   Labor and Health,      Education,    and Welfare    should

      --make effective    use of the excess capacity  of the Center for skills
         training  and other manpower programs operating    in the Oakland area
         or, if that is not feasible, minimize operating      costs by seeking
         other possible   uses for excess capacity.   Consideration   might also
         be given to obtaining    a smaller facility more in line with needs.
         (See p. 26.)
                                CHM?TERl

                              INTRODUCTION

        The General Accounting Office has made a review of the
operation     of the institutional     training   program conducted
at the East Bay Skills Center in Oakland, California.              The
institutional      training    program is authorized    by title II of
the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962, as
amended (MDTA) (42 U.S.C. 2581).

      We examined into the results       of the training     program
from its inception    in April 1966 through Eecember 31, 1969,
the utilization    of the training    facilities,    the selection
of individuals   for training,     the counseling    of trainees,    and
the follow-up   on former trainees.
      The scope of our review        is described     on page 64.

MMPOWERDEVELOPMENT
                 AND TRAINING ACT

       MDT;Pprovides that persons who lack the skills              needed
for available     jobs be given the training        and related educa-
tion which will qualify       them for work in occupations          where
shortages of trained workers exist.           Title II of MDTA, per-
taining   to training     and skill  development programs, directs
the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare to develop and institute             programs to se-
lect and train unemployed persons who cannot reasonably be
expected to obtain full-time        employment with their present
skills  and underemployed persons who are working but who,
with training,      could obtain higher level employment.             Title
II authorizes    both on-the-job     and institutional       training
programs to prepare workers for job opportunities.
       The institutional     training  program provides vocational
training   in either a public or a private vocational        educa-
tion institution       using a classroom method of teaching.     Un-
der MDTA, the Department of Labor is responsible        for

        --determining    the occupations      for   which skilled    in-
           dividuals  are needed,



                                      6
       --establish     procedures   to examine into               the nature and extent of
          counseling    services  and to emphasize                the importance of adequate
          documentation     of counseling  services               (see p. 51),

       --further      strengthen       attendance     control       procedures      (see p. 54),

       --make      funds   available     for   follow-up        services       (see p. 57),   and

       --develop  and implement           a comprehensive           regional     monitoring    system
          (see pp. 62 and 63).


MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CONGRESS

     GAO is reporting     these matters     to the Congress because of its expressed
     interest    in how effectively     and efficiently   the Departments  of Labor
     and Health,    Education,     and Welfare carry out manpower training    programs.
        After the need for training     in certain       occupations     has
been determined,      the local vocational       education office       des-
ignates the training      facilities   and, in cooperation         with
administrators      of the training  facilities,       prepares course
curricula     and budgets for all costs other than the training
allowances,     which are determined by the employment security
office.

        After the training      proposal has been reviewed and ap-
proved by the responsible          State agencies, it is submitted
to a Federal review team, composed of officials              of the Of-
fice of Education and the U.S. Training            and Employment Ser-
vice, for a review of the (1) adequacy of the labor market
justification,        (2) adequacy of the training      plan, (3) suit-
ability     of the budget, and (4) overall        compliance with ob-
jectives       and requirements    of MDTA.
       Under section 301(b) of MDTA, as amended in October
1968, State employment security    agencies and vocational       ed-
ucation agencies are authorized    to approve and obligate
20 percent of their apportioned    funds for training      pro-
posals without further    approval by the Federal Government.
Proposals for the remaining portions     of their funds may be
approved by the State agencies but may be disapproved by
either the Department of Labor or HEN within 30 days of
transmittal   to the Departments'  regional   offices.     Approval            '
is contingent   upon the training  proposals'    conforming to
the States' federally   approved Cooperative Area Manpower
Planning System plans.

       After approval of the training           proposals,    the local
employment security       office    screens, counsels,      tests, and se-
lects persons for referral          for training     and subsequently
provides trainees      with counseling,       job-placement,       and
follow-up    services.     The local vocational        education agency
office    supervises   the educational       and vocational      training
and provides counseling         during the training.




                                     8
        ww
             counseling,      selecting,         and referring   applicants       for
             institutional       training,

        -- paying      training    allowances,
        --   assisting   trained  individuals            in finding   training-
             related   employment, and
       -I
             making follow-up studies to determine if the train-
             ing programs meet the occupational  needs of the in-
             dividuals.

      The U.S. Training   and Employment Service of the Man-
power Administration    administers     these activities     through
agreements with State employment security         agencies.      Prior
to March 1969 these activities       were administered     through
the Manpower Administration's       Bureau of Employment Security.
       MDTA provides also that the Department of Health, Ed-
ucation,   and Welfare (HEW) enter into agreements with States
to provide training       programs--including      curriculum,     in-
structors,   and facilities--     for the occupations       determined
and the trainees    selected by the Department of Labor.                The
Bureau of Adult, Vocational,         and Technical Education,          Of-
fice of Education,      HEW, administers      these training     functions
through agreements with State vocational            education agencies.

        The principal     officials    of the Department of Labor and
HEWhaving responsibility            for the administration    of the
institutional      training     program are listed     in appendix III.

DEVELOPMENTOF THE INSTITUTIONAL
TRAINING PROGRAM

       Institutional         training    projects     are developed and car-
ried out jointly          by the local offices          of the responsible
State agencies in coordination               with their Federal counter-
parts in the Department of Labor and HEW. The local employ-
ment security        offices      determine the need for training,          on
the basis of comparisons of labor supply and demand, and
propose the establishment              of institutional       training  courses
to a coordinating          committee composed of community represen-
tatives.


                                             7
      The Watts riot in August 1965 gave Oakland attention
as a "hot city" where the next riot was expected.     Shortly
thereafter  four centers were decided upon in California,
three in the Los Angeles area and the fourth in Oakland.
In early 1966, the proposal to operate a skills   center in
Oakland was approved by the Department of Labor and HEW.l

       The skills center was planned with a capacity to train
1,500 persons.    A  Department of Labor official            in San Fran-
cisco told us that the capacity of the center was determined
on the basis of a commitment by the Department's Washington
office   that MDTA institutional       training    funds of $5 million
would be made available       for training      in the first    year of
operation.

      In April 1966 the East Bay Skills Center was established
as a training  facility under the sponsorship of the Peralta
Junior College District  in Oakland.

       The Center, which was officially      designated as a Man-
power Training     Skills Center by the Department of Labor and
HEW in July 1968, is located in the northern part of the city
of Oakland, as shown on the map on page 11, and is housed
in part--242,000     square feet--of   a building,    leased by the
District,    that was formerly used by a manufacturing       company.
(See picture     on p. 12.)
       The State Department of Human Resource Development
(DHRD) is the employment security         office   for the State of
California.     Local DHRDoffices      prepared the justifications
of the need for training      at the Center.       These offices      are
responsible    for referring   applicants      for training,   paying
allowances to trainees,      assisting    those terminating      training
in finding   employment, and performing necessary follow-up
studies.    Training curricula      at the Center were established
by the State vocational      education agency in coordination
with the District.


'IlTotal  Impact Evaluation    of Manpower Programs in Four
  Cities"  (first   phase report),  January 1970--Olympus Re-
   search Corporation,   Salt Lake City, Utah.
MANPOWER
       TRAINING SKILLS CENTERS

      Manpower training   skills     centers--an     important compo-
nent of the institutional      training    program--are     designed to
provide trainees with individualized          training    programs.
Skills centers were developed in response to the acute and
widely varying needs of large numbers of trainees              for spe-
cial teaching methods and approaches and for a broad range
of supportive   services.

       The skills  centers are self-contained        facilities,         op-
erating on a full-time     basis during the day, generally               un-
der public school administration,       to provide work orienta-
tion, basic and remedial education,       institutional          skill
training   in a variety   of occupations,    and counseling            and
related   services for trainees   recruited     from a broad area.
        In July 1968 the Department of Labor and HEW identified
55 establishments       as meeting the established             requirements
and designated them as manpower training                skills      centers,
As of October 1970, 69 skills            centers were operating.             The
number of trainees        enrolled    in skills     centers has increased
each year and has accounted for a growing portion of all in-
stitutional     trainees.       In fiscal year 1969, enrollments              in
skills    centers accounted for about 23,000 persons, or
17 percent of the enrollees           in institutional         training
courses funded under MDTA.

EAST BAY SKILLS CENTER

       The Olympus Research Corporation,     a management consul-
tant firm under contract    with the Department of Labor, in
its report on manpower programs in four cities        stated that
the original   impetus for establishing    a skills   center in
the Oakland area came from the California       State Employment
Service and the Economic Development Administration         of the
Department of Commerce. The State employment service in
late 1965 proposed four skills     centers in California,     in-
cluding one in Oakland.      In 1965 the Economic Development
Administration   chose Oakland as the site for an intended
demonstration   of what it could do in urban development and
advocated a skills    center as vital   to its plans.



                                        9
              FACILITY   HOUSING   THE   EAST   BAY   SKILLS   CENTER

        Costs incurred in operating        the Center from inception
through June 1970 totaled        about $16,400,000,      consisting  of
$9,300,000 for training       costs--instructional       services,  sup-
portive     services,   equipment, facilities,      and program admin-
istration--     and $7,100,000 for trainees'       allowances.
        The original    lease of the Center building         covered a
Z-year period beginning in April 1966 at a monthly rental of
$12,262, or $147,000 a year.          The lease was renewed for an
additional     2-year period in April 1968 at a monthly rental
of $13,000, or $156,000 a year.           In the first      program year,
about $500,000 was spent for building            modifications,     prin-
cipally    for partitions     and for changes to meet fire regula-
tions.     An additional     $290,000 was spent in the two follow-
ing years for other building         modifications.
       Training   allowances are paid to trainees      at a rate
equal to the State's average unemployment insurance weekly
benefit    payment plus certain adjustments      to give recognition
to a trainee's     number of dependents, the trainee's       length of
enrollment,     and in certain   instances for transportation      be-
tween a trainee's      residence and the Center.     The average
allowance paid to trainees       enrolled  at the Center during the
period January 1 through June 30, 1969, was $63 a week,

                                         12
LOCATION OF EAST BAY SKILLS CENTER
TRAINING PROVIDED

      From inception   of the training     program through Decem-
ber 31, 1969--a period of 45 months--the          Center enrolled
about 3,350 trainees     in its vocational     training     courses and
provided basic education and prevocational           instruction    to
an additional   550 trainees    between September 1967 and June
1968, under a contract with the local community action
agency which operated the area's Concentrated            Employment
Program.

      As shown in the chart on the following  page, the number
of trainees  at the Center has ranged from a low of 80 during
the early months of operation   in August and September 1966
to a high of 1,100 trainees   in March 1967 and has followed
a declining  trend since that time through December 1969.

       Data maintained by DHRD showed that, of 542 trainees
entering   the Center during calendar year 1969, about 73 per-
cent were male, 67 percent were 25 years of age or under,
51 percent had no dependents,    51 percent had not completed
high school, 67 percent had been unemployed 26 weeks or
less, and 16 percent were on public assistance.




                                  14
                               CHAPTER2

                           PROGRAMRESULTS

       The principal    results  of the Center's training program
during its initial      45-month operating  period are summarized
below.

      --About 3,350 trainees    enrolled     in vocational    training
         courses, and another 550 trainees         obtained basic ed-
         ucation and prevocational     instruction      under a con-
         tract with the local community action agency.

      --The average length of the courses completed in 1968
         was about 8 months, and the average cost of training
         a person was about $4,100.

      --Of the      2,826 trainees who left the training    courses
         during     the period July 1967 through December 1969,
         1,805    trainees   completed training  or left training   to
         accept     employment and 1,021 trainees   left training
         prior    to completion for various other reasons.

      --Follow-up   information   on the employment status of 430
         of the 685 trainees who had enrolled    in courses com-
         pleted in fiscal    year 1968 and had completed training
         or accepted employment prior to completing training
         showed that about 67 percent of the 430 trainees were
         working and 33 percent were not working.
      --Our analysis    of changes in earnings for a random sam-
         ple of former trainees   showed that about two thirds
         of the trainees who were employed were earning at a
         higher rate than they were earning prior to training.

       The data presented in this chapter provides some in-
sight into the accomplishments      of the Center.    However, the
absence of adequate data on the employment status of former
trainees   precluded our arriving    at a conclusion   concerning
the Center's overall effectiveness.       Details of the Center!s
program are discussed in the following       sections of this
chapter.


                                    13
TRAINING COSTS

      We analyzed Center records to ascertain   the costs for
the 45 training   projects which included 67 training   courses
completed in calendar year 1968, the latest period for
which cost data was available   at the time of our field re-
view.

      We estimated  that the costs         for   the 67 courses      totaled
$4,466,000,   as shown below.

                                                                   Amount

Center costs:
    Instructional       services                              $1,664,000
    Building     rental and employee pay-
       roll benefits                                                 378,000
    Equipment purchases and maintenance
       and repair                                                    134,000
    Utilities,      custodial    services, and
      miscellaneous       costs                                      218,000
         Total   Center   costs                                   2,394,ooo

Allowances   naid trainees                                        2.072.000
         Total   estimated    costs                          $4,466,000

      An average of about 18 trainees   were enrolled  monthly
in each of the 67 courses.   Cur allocation    of the total es-
timated costs of about $4.5 million    shows that the costs
averaged about $511 a man-month, or about $6,100 a man-
year.

      The lengths of the various courses ranged from 25 to
56 weeks. The average length of the 67 courses was about
8 months, and, the average cost to train a person was about
$4,100.   As shown in the following  table, the costs, as es-
timated by us, of training   persons in the various courses
varied considerably.




                                      16
                          NUMBER OF TRAiNEES AT TI-IE CENTER
                                          FROM
NUMBERQF       TRAINEES    APRIL 1966 THROUGH DECEMBER 1969
1160
           -

1120

1080

1040

1000

 960

 920

 880

 840

 800

 760

 720

 680

 640

 660

 560

 520

 480

 440

 400

 360

 320

 280

 240

 200

 160

 120

  80

  40

   0
       A
l?ESULTSOF TRAINING

       Center records showed that, of the 2,826 trainees              who
left the vocational       training     courses during the period July
1967 through December 1969, 1,805 trainees,               or 64 percent,
either completed training           or left training    to accept employ-
ment and 1,021 trainees         left training     prior to completion
for reasons such as absenteeism, personal problems, loss of
interest,    and illness.       This data is summarized below.
                                                      Number and percent             of trainees
                                                 1967
                    Status                    (note a>       1968                    1969            Total

Completed training    or left   train-
   ing to accept employment                   482        74%        873     64% 450         55%    1,805      64%
Voluntary  and involuntary    termi-
  nations                                     --166      26    -- 494       36    --361     45     1,021     36

        Total                                 3       100%     1,367       100%   811     E%       2,826     E%


aJuly     1967 through       December 1967 only.




            A further  analysis of the reasons                             that     1,805 trainees
left        the program follows:
                                       Number and percent of trainees
                                  1967
                                (note a>      1968        1969        Total

Employment                      386      80% 673               77% 328              73% 1,387                 77%
Other than
  employment                   --96     20         --
                                                   200         23         122
                                                                          --       27             418        23

          Total                 482    100% 873  100% 450                         100% 1,805                 100%
                               -Z           r=          Em                             -m
aJuly           1967 through        December 1967 only.

       DHFUIis responsible   for making a follow-up      on the em-
ployment status of terminated      trainees.     Our review of Center
and DHRD records pertaining      to the 1,224 trainees     enrolled
in the 67 training    courses completed during calendar year
1968 showed that 685 trainees,       or 56 percent,   completed
training  or accepted employment prior to completing training
and that the remaining 539 trainees        either dropped out,

                                                         18
                                                                                         Range of
                                Number     Length of         Enrollment                 estimated
        Occupational               of       projects                   Actual              costs
          division             projects     in weeks   Authorized     (note a)         w         Low

Automotive    and aircraft
  mechanics                        10      26 to 56          369                     $ 6,244 $2,613
Clerical    and sales              14      25 to 40          335              343
                                                                              28Lb     6,452 1,716
Welding, machine ser-
  vicing    and assembly           11      26 to 56          320              359b   11,776    2,972
Federal preapprentice
  and utility    workers               5   25 to 30          160              129      7,219   1,990
Technical                              3   47                 95               9gb     5,618   5,000
Culinary    and related
  services                         -2      26 to 48          105               86      5,111   2,347

       Total                       g                      1,384           a

aThe enrollment  total  of 1,294 shown above exceeds the actual number,              1,224 of en-
 rollees  because of transfers  of trainees from one course to another.
b
    The fact   that enrollment  was higher than authorized is due to the enrolling   of
    trainees   to replace others leaving or dropping out prior to completion    of a course.

        High-cost      projects       generally     evince high equipment        and
teacher     salary     costs,      low enrollment        levels,  and long
training      periods;      low-cost      projects     generally   evince    low
equipment      and teacher         salary    costs,    high enrollment     levels,
and short training            periods.




                                                17
       Of the 33 former trainees who were employed at the
time of our review, 16 were employed in training-related
jobs.     The former trainees who generally accepted employment
prior to completing their training    were working in non-
training-related     jobs.
      We compared the earnings of the 33 former trainees who
were employed at the time of our interviews         with available
earnings data at the time they entered training.          The com-
parison showed that the earning rates of 21 were higher
than they had been prior to training        and that the earning
rates of 10 were lower.    Information      on the earnings of the
other two prior to their entering      training   was not available.
The earning rates for the 22 trainees who were employed
prior to completion of training     averaged 17 percent more
than the earning rates indicated     for them prior to training,
The earning rates for the 11 trainees who attended training
through its completion averaged 12 percent more than indiN
cated prior to training.

      Our contacts with the former employers of 20 trainees
who had been employed after leaving the Center showed that
four had quit, seven had been fired for unsatisfactory    per-
formance, and five had been laid off because of lack of work
or injury.   We were not provided with reasons for separation
of the remaining four.

      Benefits of training    may have been derived by some of
the 1,021 trainees    (see p. 18 > who left the program before
completing training    for reasons such as absenteeism and per-
sonal problems.     DHRD does not, however, perform any follow-
up with such trainees     to determine their experiences in the
labor market.    Of the 50 such terminees included in our ran-
dom sample of 116, we were able to determine the status of
only 4. One trainee had joined the Navy, one was employed,
one had been employed but was again unemployed, and one had
not been employed during the g-month period after she left
the Center.




                                  20
voluntarily   or involuntarily--for reasons such as absentee-
.ism, personal problems, loss of interest,    and illness=-or
transferred   to other courses at the Center.

      DHRDperformed a limited     amount of follow-up      on ter-
  .          .       rimarily  through  inquiries    mailed    at 3-,
minated trainees,  p
6-9 and l&month intervals.       (See p. 55.)     The data ob-
tained by DHRD in this manner showed that, at the most re-
cent contact or attempted contact with the 685 former train-
ees who had completed training     or had accepted employment
prior to completing training,     287, or 42 percent,      reported
that they were working; 143, or 21 percent,        reported that
they were not working; and 255, or 37 percent,         could not be
located.

       To examine into the employment status of former train-
ees , we selected at random 116 from the 1,224 trainees             who
had been enrolled      in the 67 training    courses completed in
calendar year 1968 and reviewed the Center's and DHRD's rec-
ords relating     to their participation     in the training     program
and interviewed     the former trainees and/or their last-known
employers.     The records showed that, of the 116 trainees,           66
had completed training       or had left to accept employment be-
fore completing training       and 50 had left training      prior to
completion,    for various reasons.       In interviewing    the 66
former trainees     and/or their employers, we learned that 33
were employed, 29 were unemployed, and 4 were going to
school.     Shown below is the time that had elapsed from the
time the 66 trainees had left the Center to the time of our
interviews.

                           Elapsed time after leaving Center
                        18 months 12 to 18 6 to 12 less than
  Status       Total     or more   months     months 6 months

Employed          33         2          18          13
Unemployed        29         3          14          11             1
Going to
  school          -4        --          1           -3         -
    Total         66
                  =                                           C1
readily   permit new trainees     to enter into positions   made
available   through attrition     as the courses proceeded.    (See
p. 28.1

       The low utilization    of the Center's facilities      was not
offset by the use of the facilities         for other federally   sup-
ported manpower training      programs.    Between September 1967
and June 1968, the Center acted as a subcontractor          to pro-
vide basic education and prevocational          instruction to 550
trainees   under the area's Concentrated Employment Program
 (CEP). The Center, however, was not awarded the follow-on
contract   for such training.       The continued use of the Cen-
ter's facilities      for such programs would appear to be in
keeping with congressional       intent.

        The Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, in
its report (S. Rept. 1445) dated July 20, 1968, on the 1968
amendments to MDTA, expressed concern that there was no plan
or rationale    for linking     the operation    of the skills     centers
with CEP and JOBS. The Committee expected that program
sponsors funded under part B, title           I, of the Economic Op-
portunity    Act would use funds provided to arrange for or
purchase skill     training   or other services from MDTA programs.
The Committee clearly       envisioned    that title    I-B funds could
be used by CEP and JOBS sponsors for institutional              training
activities    by subcontracting      with an institutional      training
operator,    such as a skills      center, to provide the training
services.

        The 1968 amendments to MDTA, effective          October 24, 1968,
provided in section 231(b) that--in             making arrangements for
institutional      training    financed with funds appropriated        to
carry out titles        I and II of MDTA including      but not limited
to basic education,         employability    and communications skills,
prevocational      training,     and vocational    and technical
training--priority        be given to the use of skills        centers for
carrying      out such training.

      To implement the 1968 amendment to section 231(b), the
Department of Labor in September 1969 established     a policy
that priority  would be given to MDTA skills   centers for pro-
grams such as CEP and JOBS. In June 1970 the Department of
Labor and HEW jointly  issued guidelines   for the planning and


                                    22
                                CHARTER3

         UNDERIJTILIZATION OF THE EAST BAY SKILLS CENTER

      The Department of Labor planned to fund the Center to
permit its operation      at a 1,500-trainee  level.   However,
other high-priority      programs such as the Job Opportunities
in the Business Sector program (JOBS) were authorized,          and
the Department was unable to provide the level of funding
that had been planned for the Center.        With the exception
of funding for fiscal       year 1967, funds made available   to the
Center have not been adequate to permit its operation         at the
planned level,      as shown below.

                                             Authorized
          Fiscal             Funds            training
           year            available          positions

           1966          $ 4,744,162                688
           1967            5,041,808             1,555
           1968            1,926,658                625
           1969            3,509,585                680
           1970            2,353,929                430

           Total         $17,576,142             3,978

       The total number of trainees who were enrolled    in the
vocational    and educational tra$ning program from its incep-
tion through December 1969 represented      an average monthly
enrol.lment of about 490 trainees,    or about 33 percent of the
complement that the Center was designed to serve.       During
calendar year 1969, an average of about 300 trainees were
enrolled   each month, or about 20 percent of the complement
that the Center was designed to serve.
         The low utilization       of Center facilities      was primarily
attributable        to a reduction    in MDTA institutional       funding
for skills       centers and a failure      to provide for use of the
facilities       for the educational     and vocational      programs of
other organizations.          Also, the Center's method of funding
its training        courses was causing delays in initiating
follow-on      training    courses after prior courses had been
completed, and the design of the training               courses did not

                                       21
        The proposal was submitted tb and approved by the re-
gional MDTA program officer,      and the HEW regional    office
approved the subcontract    with the Opportunities     Industri-
alization    Center.




                                24
development of skills    centers,which          include   procedures     for
implementing the policy.

       In June 1967 the Department of Labor contracted           with
the community action agency to operate CEP in the Oakland
area.    The agency arranged with the Center to conduct a pro-
gram of basic education and prevocational         instruction      for
550 CEP participants      from July 1967 through June 1968 at a
subcontract     price of about $753,000, exclusive        of training
allowances.      The price included about $170,000 for the Cen-
ter for necessary renovations       to provide classroom space and
$72,000 for instructional      equipment.     CEP participants      were
enrolled    during the period September 1967 through June 1968;
the number of participants      ranged from a low of 49 in Sep-
tember to a high of 487 in March and averaged 224 a month
during the period.

      On March 11, 1968, CEP requested the Center to submit
a proposal by March 15, 1968, for providing   basic education
under a second-year CEP contract with the Department of La-
bor.   The Center Director  told us that, because of the lim-
ited time available,   the proposal submitted in response to
this request was a rough estimate and not a final document.

       The Center's proposal provided for training     400 persons
for periods ranging from 8 to 30 weeks at a cost of $877,000,
exclusive    of trainee stipends.    The community action agency's
council approved the proposal as part of the second-year
CEP. However, the Department of Labor then notified         the
agency that CEP funds for the second-year program had been
reduced from $9.6 million     to $4.6 million.    The agencyOs
director   thereupon determined that the Center's cost pro-
posal was too high to be acceptable within the new budget.

        We found no evidence to indicate           that the community
action agency negotiated           with the Center to develop a basic
educational     instruction       program in keeping with the reduced
CEP budget.       Instead,     the agency director      requested the Op-
portunities     Industrialization        Center in Oakland to submit a
proposal for the basic education training               subcontract.       The
community action agency helped the Opportunities                 Industri-
alization     Center to prepare the proposal providing              for
training     344 persons for a period of 18 weeks at a cost of
$463,000, exc 1usive of training           stipends.

                                      23
programs.   To realize  the maximum benefit  from the large
investment in modifying the building    for use as a training
facility-- about $790,000 (see p.12)--and    the significant
annual rental costs, every effort    should be made to use the
excess capacity of the facility   for other manpower programs
operating  in the Oakland area, such as the Job Corps, CEP,
and JOBS.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SECRETARIES
OF LABOR AND OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

       We recommend that the Manpower Administration         and the
Office of Education make effective      use of the excess capa-
city of the Center for skills    training     and other manpower
training   programs operating  in the Oakland area or, if that
is not feasible,   minimize operating     costs by seeking other
possible uses for the excess capacity.         Consideration    might
also be given to obtaining    a smaller facility      more in line
with needs.



         The Assistant     Secretary for Administration,            Department
of Labor, commented on our draft report by letter                     dated Sep-
tember 23, 1970.         (See    app.    I.)   A Department      of Labor
official     told us that the views of DHRDon the draft report
were incorporated        in the Department's          comments to us.      In
commenting, the Assistant            Secretary pointed out that the De-
partment of Labor and HEWhad developed and issued in June
1970 new guidelines         for the planning and development of
skills     centers and that these guidelines              would encourage
other programs to make use of skills                 center facilities.       He
said that, although the Department<of Labor's regional                     staff
was making a continuous           effort     to achieve -full utilization
of the Center,       there    was  no    immediate-prospect       of this.    He
also stated that the Department of Labor'would                    wait to see
if these efforts        alleviated       the Cent&r's excess capacity
problem and that, if the problem still                 persisted     after a
year or so, the Department would look into the desirability
of moving to <a smaller building.                  '

      The Assistant  Secretary,  Comptroller,  HEW, by letter
dated October 2, 1970 (see app. II), advised us that HEW
agreed that appropriate    steps should be taken to make use of

                                       26
        In February 1970 the Regional Assistant      Commissioner
of HEW in San Francisco      told us that he was concerned about
the poor utilization      of the Center facility.     He stated
that a team of Federal officials       was scheduled to make a
comprehensive review of the Center's operation          and that a
report on the review would be sent to the State vocational
education agency and to the State human resources develop-
ment agency.      He stated also that he expected that HEW and
Department of Labor representatives       would meet with these
two State agencies and would meet later with officials          of
the Peralta Junior College District.        He said that he was
advised that the Job Corps unit in the Department of Labor
was negotiating     with the State vocational     education agency
and the Center for use of part of the facility          in the near
future.

        In February 1970 the Department of Labor's Regional
Manpower Administrator          in California    told us that he was
concerned about low utilization            of the Center and that the
low utilization       in fiscal    year 1970 was due to a decrease in
the amount of funds provided.             He pointed out that MDTA in-
stitutional     training    funds made available      to California    in
fiscal    year 1970 were $?,993,000 less than the amount made
available     in fiscal    year 1969 and that the reduction         re-
sulted in decreases in a number of training             projects.

      The Regional Manpower Administrator     stated that the Job
Corps was giving serious consideration      to leasing space at
the Center and that he had encouraged the Job Corps to uti-
lize the Center's services,   including   its instructional
services,   if possible.  He stated also that he understood
that funding of 4 projects   under section 241 of MDTA was
imminent and that the courses, whi&h would be held at the
Center, would increase enrollment     by 180 trainees.

CONCLUSIONS

       If     the funding of MDTA institutional       training programs
at the      Center is continued in subsequent years at the same
level,      the Center's facilities      will continue to be signifi-
cantly      underutilized,   unless steps are taken to use the
Center      to provide training     services for other manpower

                                    25
                               CHAPTER4

                  PROGRESSTOWARDMOREEFFECTIVE

                FUNDING AND TRAINING PROCEDURES

         The Center had achieved less-than-effective              use of its
facilities,       staff,     and other resources because (1) the
method of funding its training              courses caused delays in ini-
tiating     follow-on      training   courses after prior courses had
been completed and (2) the design of the training                   courses
did not readily          permit introduction       of new trainees    into
training     positions       made available     through attrition     as the
courses proceeded.            As a result,    fewer persons were provided
training      than could have been if the courses had been de-
signed to permit replacement of terminated                trainees.

PROBLEMSIN PROJECT-BY-PROJECTFUNDING

       The Center has not been funded in a manner which pro-
vides for continuous operation          of its training    courses but
rather has been funded on a project-by-project             basis.     The
Department of Labor's procedures (see p. 7) require (1) the
local employment security       agency to determine the need for
a specific    type of training,      (2) the local vocational        edu-
cation agency to prepare and approve a training              course,
(3) State and Federal officials          to review and approve the
training   proposal,    and (4) after approval,        the employment
security   agency to recruit     trainees     and the vocational      edu-
cation agency to assign members of the existing              staff or to
hire new staff members, and to resolve administrative                matters
associated    with providing    a training     course.    Although the
Center reprogrammed training        courses in most skills        on a
continuing    basis,  the  above   procedures    had   to be  completed
before each succeeding course could be scheduled.
       Center facilities    are costly to maintain even when not
fully used because of fixed costs--the         rental for building
space and the amortization       of the investment      in building
modifications     and equipment.    Expenditures     for modifying  the
building    to use as a training    facility   amounted to about
$790,000.      (See pm 12.)   Two of the classrooms are illus-
trated in the pictures      on the following     page, Also, the

                                      28
the Center's excess capacity.     He stated that HEWwas hope-
ful of additional   funding during fiscal    year 1971, which
would provide for an increase in skills      training.     He
stated also that, before considering      a smaller facility,
consideration   must be given to the capital      investment, the
local community involvement,    and the large expenditures
already incurred.

      In December 1970 a Department of Labor official     told
us that the Department planned to have CEP provide      basic
education to its enrollees  at the Center beginning     in Feb-
ruary 1971.




                                27
Center acquired         large   amounts of equipment,       such as type-
writers,    lathes,       drill  presses,    milling   machines,   and cash
registers,      for the training        courses.     In view of such a
significant       investment     in the facilities,       every effort
should be made to use them to the greatest                 extent  feasible.

       The underutilization        of space and equipment   resulting
from   the funding      procedures   is illustrated  below.

       Clerk-typist        course

       During 1968 two courses           were given with an authorized
       total    enrollment       of 40 persons.       The first    course ended
       in August and the second course ended in November.
       Planning      for the next two courses           began in April      1968.
       The courses       were funded and approved           in January     1969.
       One of the follow-on          courses    started     in January     and the
       other    started     in February     1969.     As a result,     intervals
       occurred      between the end- of the two 1968 courses               and
       the beginning        of the two follow-on         courses,   of 5 and 3
       months,     respectively,      during    which the classroom         space
       was unused.

       Switchboard        operator      course

       During the period      March through    September      1968, the
       Center gave a course with an authorized            enrollment      of
       '20 persons   for training   telephone     switchboard      opera-
       tors.     In April  1968 the Center initiated          plans for a
       follow-on    course for 20 persons,      but the course was
       not funded and approved until        January     1969.     The course
       began in January      1969, more than 3 months after          the pre-
       ceding course was completed.         During this period         the
       classroom    space was unused.

       Periods       in which training        facilities       are not used re-
sult   in increased        per-person     training       costs.      Fluctuating
levels    of training       activities      also have an affect             on the
Center's     ability     to recruit      and retain       a qualified         staff     be-
cause the number of training              personnel       needed varies,            de-
pending     on whether      courses    are being given.            Finally,         as
discussed     on page 36, course-scheduling                practices        at the
Center appear to have contributed                   to inappropriate          selec-
tion and referral          of individuals        for training.

                                            30
EQUIPMENT IN TWO CLASSROOMS AT THE EAST BAY CENTER




              GROCERYCHECKERCOURSE




             METAL   FORMING   COURSE
CHANGESIN FUNDING AND TRAINING PROCEDURES

       HEWrecognized that, during late 1967 and early 1968,
manpower training      skills     centers experienced       long delays in
obtaining    funding for training         projects.     These delays re-
sulted in facilities        not being used, instructors           leaving,
and delays in enrolling         trainees.      Project-by-project        fund-
ing resulted     in sharp fluctuations         in enrollments       and re-
duced skills     centers'     capacities     to respond quickly to local
needs.

      The Senate Cormnittee on Labor and Public Welfare, in
its report dated July 20, 1968, on the 1968 amendments to
MDTA, directed   the Department of Labor and T3EWto revise the
funding arrangements for skills     centers.    The report stated
that the Committee expected some skills      centers to be funded
on an annual rather than a project      basis in order that a de-
termination   might be made of whether annual funding would
improve administration    and guarantee that persons most in
need of training    are served.
       In August 1968 the skills    centers in Forth Worth, Phil-
adelphia,   and Syracuse began operating       their institutional
training   programs on an annual funding basis.         In July 1969
after reviewing the results      of the change in funding proce-
dure, the Division    of Manpower Development and Training           of
the Office of Education,      HEW, approved the use of annual
funding-- the "annualization"     concept--for     all skills    centers.

      Annualization     of funding enables skills        centers to de-
velop operating     plans--including     planning,     development,   and
funding of training      courses --to cover the basic training
program for a year or more. The operating             plan specifies
the education and training         to be offered,    the additional
services to be provided,        the number of trainees       expected, a
schedule of trainees       to be enrolled,     and the timing and
amount of the related expenditures.            The annualization     con-
cept allows a skills       center director     to schedule the center's
work to minimize excessive peaks and valleys             in enrollments.

       To maintain a constant enrollment    level, skills   centers
operating under the annualization     concept can institute     a
more flexible     curriculum design which permits continuous

                                      32
PROBLEMSWITH COURSESDESIGNED
ALONGTRADITIONAL
      -          EDUCATIONLINES

        Each training    course at the Center was designed along
traditional     education lines.        A prescribed      training    curricu-
lum was established       for each course, through which trainees
were presented with increasingly            difficult     subject matter as
the course proceeded.          A specific     number of training        posi-
tions was established        for each course.         This system resulted
in a progressively       declining   utilization       of facilities      and
training    staff as a course proceeded because of (1) the high
attrition    rate due to trainee dropouts--voluntary                and invol-
untary-- and (2) the Center's policy of placing trainees                    in
employment as soon as they were adjudged proficient                   for a
known job opening.        New trainees generally          could not benefit
from enrolling      in vacancies in on-going courses created by
dropouts because of the lack of knowledge of the training
previously    provided in the courses.

       Our examination of the records of 116 randomly selected
trainees who were enrolled   in courses completed during 1968
showed that 79 had left training    prior to completion of
their courses.

        We noted that, in the 1969 fiscal         year courses, a high
attrition    rate and difficulties       in enrolling     new trainees       as
positions    became available      were experienced.        At the time of
our fieldwork,      25 of the 32 courses funded in fiscal             year
1969 had reached or exceeded the halfway point of the sched-
uled training     period.    Of the 584 trainees        enrolled,     only
318 (54 percent) were still         in training    at the halfway point.
Of the 25 courses, 21 had reached the three-quarter                 point of
the training     period;  and, of the 496 trainees          enrolled,     only
198 trainees     (40 percent) were still        in training.
      The Center Director      advised us that, when possible,     the
Center tries to enter trainees        in vacated training  positions
until  a course reaches its halfway mark; but, as a course
progresses,   the characteristics       and standards for enrollment
of a trainee must be raised if the trainee is to catch up
and maintain pace with the class.          He also stated that train-
ees entering    courses beyond the midpoint could not be ex-
pected to complete the courses.


                                      31
        The Center Director    advised us that he was aware of
the benefits    of the annualization      concept but that he had
not been able to implement the program because of the limi-
tations    of existing  regulations    which were project,       rather
than program, oriented,       He added, however, that the Center
planned to prepare its fiscal        year 1971 project proposals
on the basis of the annualization         concept.   An official      of
the State Department of Education told us that he believed
annualization     was necessary-but    that guidelines   for putting
the concept into effect had not been developed.

      The Regional Manpower Administrator          advised us that he
had participated     in meetings to discuss annualization        and
open-end and cluster-type        training    with Center and State
agency staff and to lend assistance           in implementing this ap-
proach to training.        He said that it was hoped that by using
this approach the Center would be able to train more persons
with the same amount of funds because it would be possible
to replace trainees who completed courses early or dropped
out.    He said that this approach also would provide an op-
portunity    for enrolling    trainees    in courses throughout   the
year.
       The HEW regional  program officer   for MDTA in California
agreed that annualization     appeared to offer advantages not
available   under the current project    method of funding but
stated that HEWhad not issued guidelines       for establishing
an annualized program.

CONCLUSION
       We believe that the new funding and training              proce-
dures--annualized        funding,    open-entry/open-exit      system,
cluster     courses --offer    opportunity     for a more effective
training     program.     Under these procedures recruitment           goals
could be set sufficiently           in advance to provide greater op-
portunities      for enrolling      those most in need of the train-
ing and programs could be planned to provide better utili-
zation of facilities         and promote greater continuity         of staff.
Individualized       attention    to trainees     and continuous progress
of those in training         would become more feasible.



                                     34
trainee intake and exit from center programs.            This concept
of an open-entry/open-exit        system provides an individual
with the opportunity      to enter a training    course at given in-
tervals   throughout   the year and to terminate when he has at-
tained the level of training        consistent  with his occupational
goal.   The open-entry/open-exit        system generally   stablizes
the enrollment    throughout    the year and consequently      tends
also to equalize the demand for administrative           and counsel-
ing services throughout      the year.

       Annualization      is accompanied by a concept under which
educationally      and industrially       related occupations       are
grouped or "clustered"          at the same skill      level or in a skill
ladder progression        that allows a trainee to progress as far
as his ability      will carry him. For example, a motor vehicle
mechanic occupational         cluster may consist of specialties
ranging from a low-skilled           occupation--service      station   atten-
dant--to    progressively      higher skilled      occupations--body     re-
pairman, tune-up man, transmission             mechanic, or air-
conditioning     mechanic.

       An individual     could enter the motor vehicle occupational
cluster   in the body repairman course and, if he showed high
aptitude,     could subsequently    take the transmission    mechanic
course.     If he did not exhibit      the mechanical aptitude for
body work, he could enroll in a course, such as that for
service station      attendant,  requiring   less mechanical apti-
tude.




                                     33
                             CHAPTER5

                  IMPROVEMENTS
                             NEEDEDTO ENHANCE

               EFFECTIVENESSOF THE TRAINING PROGRAM

       Our review revealed a number of operating  areas in
which improved administration     by DHRDand the Center could
result   in a more effective  training program.

       The DURDlocal offices  frequently   selected and re-
ferred for training   at the Center individuals    who had physi-
cal, mental, or emotional handicaps which the Center was
not equipped to remedy or who did not appear to need the
training   available at the Center to obtain gainful    employ-
ment.

         The Center was not providing    trainees with the compre-
hensive counseling     service to improve their attitudes    and
motivation     with the objective   of increasing  their employ-
ability.

     The Center did not penalize        trainees   for unexcused   ab-
sences.
       DHRDwas not obtaining    sufficient      data on the employ..
ment status of former trainees to assess the adequacy of
training   at the Center.    In addition,      DHRDdid not provide
these trainees with such follow-up         services as additional
training   and placement services.

         The above matters are discussed     in detail   in the fol-
lowing     sections of this chapter.

SELECTION OF INDIVIDUALS FOR TRAINING

       Our review revealed that individuals       were frequently
referred   to the Center for training    by local DHRDoffices
although they did not appear to meet the criteria           for en-
rollment.     Some trainees were physically      or emotionally
handicapped;    and some appeared to have possessed, at the
time of their referral     for training,   sufficient    skills   to
obtain gainful    employment.

                                   36
      In a draft report,     we    proposed that the Secretaries     of
Labor and Health, Education,          and Welfare, together with re-
sponsible State and Center         officials,   take appropriate  ac-
tion to convert the funding         of the Center's operations    to
an annualized basis and to         adopt the open-entry/open-exit
and the occupational     cluster      concepts.


                                                                   ..
      The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Administration
advised us that the new guidelines   for the planning and de-
velopment of skills  centers provide for annualized funding
and that annualized funding at the Center began in March
1970.
      The AssistantSecretary,     Comptroller,  HEW, advised_&
that HEW and the Department of Labor had reviewed and ap-
proved procedures to permit annualization      of the funding of .J
the Center, beginning-with
                  ..   .      fiscal year 1971.

       Center records showed that in March 1970 thd De;-art'- .*'-
ment of Labor and HEW approved annualized           funding for' 260 .'
training    positions     at a cost of $1.9 million     for the period
March 1970 through December 1970 and that the training             proj-
ects would be operated on the open-entry/open-exit             and the
occupational      cluster   bases.
                                                               :




                                    35
        The selection  criteria   to be used by the local DHRD
offices    in making referrals    to the Center was defined by
the coastal area director       of DHRDin a December 1966 memo-
randum to the local offices.         The memorandum stated that
the training     was designed for those who did not have skills
or who had low or obsolete skills.           The offices    were ad-
vised not to refer to the program individuals            who had sal-
able skills     but who might be unemployed or underemployed
for such reasons as racial       discrimination,      physical handi-
caps, emotional problems, alcoholism,            or age. The memoran-
dum pointed out that trainees        selected should be in reason-
ably good physical condition.

       DHRD is responsible   for selecting     enrollees     for train-
ing at the Center.      The State office allocates        the available
training  positions   to the local offices      stationed      throughout
the Oakland area.     The local office     selects individuals        on
the bases of their personal characteristics           and the occupa-
tional perfo'rmance requirements.

      As a test of the adequacy of the selection       and referral
process, we reviewed the case histories      of the 116 trainees
selected at random from among the 1,224 trainees who had
been enrolled   in the 67 training   courses completed in cal-
endar year 1968. Our classification       of the appropriateness
of these 116 trainees   for enrollment    in the training   courses
is shown in the following    table.
                                                      Appropriate            Inappropriate
       Trainee
       ---         status               Total            (note a)                (note b)            Indeterminate
                                                                                                     ----~
voluntary       and involuntary
    termination                            50                13                     21                       16
Employed prior           to com-
   pleting      training                   29                 9                     10                       10
Completed       training                 - 37                20                     -8                       -9
      Total
                                         =116
                                                             42
                                                             =                       =39                     =35
      Percent                        -100.0                -
                                                            36.2                   -33.6                    -30.2
aThe selection    of a trainee    was classified       as appropriate       when he appeared      to meet the re-
 quired  physical   and educational     levels      set forth    in the   training  projects      and needed a
 salable   skill.
bThe selection     of a trainee       was classified       as inappropriate       when the case history   indicates
 that he exhibited        serious    physical,    medical,    or emotional       problems;   did not meet the re-
 quired  reading     level;     did not indicate     an interest       in training;      or appeared to be job-
 ready as evidenced         by prior   work history      and education      levels.




                                                          38
       The enrollment      of persons whom the Center is not de-
signed to serve reduces the number of training            positions
available   for those who could benefit          from the Center's
program.    To improve the selection         process, the Center and
DHRDtemporarily       initiated,    at  the time of our review, an
additional    screening process under which enrollees           under-
went a further     evaluation     at the Center after they were re-
ferred by the local DHRDoffices            but before they were ac-
cepted as trainees.

        In the Department of Labor's Employment Security Man-
=L      the section dealing with the selection of applicants
for   training    provides that:

             "In considering     an applicant      for suitable
      training   courses,    the  decision    will    be based
      upon an appraisal      of his skills,      aptitudes,     in-
      terests,   and personal qualities        ***.I'

      The IYDTAHandbookOs chapter          on selection     and referral
of trainees  states that:
              II*** A heavy responsibility,      therefore,
      rests on the Employment Service to select and re-
      fer for training        those workers who (a) are par-
      ticularly     in need of this training       in order to
      obtain employment, and (b) at the same time are
      so likely     to profit     from it that they will ob-
      tain full-time     suitable     work promptly upon their
      completion of the course."
       Relative     to the personal characteristics         of persons
selected for      training,  the DHRDmanual states          that:

      "Some applicants    may seek training     as a solution
      to their personal or financial       problems,   MDTA
      training    is not intended to remove a physical
      handicap, cure a psychosis,      restore a damaged
      reputation,    or erase a prison record. *** In the
      long run, a careless or sstop-gapV referral          to
      training    for a person with serious personal prob-
      lems is as undesirable     as no service at all in
      terms of the ultimate     effect on the individual."


                                     37
Voluntary   and involuntary     terminations

       The case histories     showed that,'of     34,trainees       who had
left,   21 had been selected and referred         for,.training      al-
though they had problems, singly or in combination,                 such as
drug addiction,     alcoholism,    serious mental and emotional dis-
orders, or physical      handicaps.     Center officials        advised us
that the Center had experienced         only limited      success in de-
veloping   skills   of individuals     with these problems and in
placing them. The following         cases illustrate        the selection
of trainees     not meeting the criteria      for enrollment.

      Trainee A was referred     to the Center by a local DHRDof-
      fice on June 19, 1968, for training       as a waiter.     The
      referral   was made after one interview     by DHRD, during
      which the trainee refused counseling       services.     He was
      enrolled    at the Center on June 24, 1968. On July 8,
      1968, the trainee received his first       counseling.     The
      counselor records stated that the trainee used dope and
      stole and that he was using the program for obtaining
      the training     allowance rather than for training.       The
      trainee   left on July 19,    1968, after  being   advised  to
      do so by the counselor.

      Trainee B was a 39-year-old      single male with no depen-
      dents, who recently   had been released from 6 years of
      imprisonment.   He was initially      referred    to the program
      in November 1967 for enrollment        in basic education un-
      der CEP. DHRDrecords indicated           that this trainee was
      an alcoholic.   Shortly after being enrolled         he was ar-
      rested for drunkenness.     On May 8, 1968, he was jailed
      for carrying  a gun and his enrollment        was terminated.

            On June 10, 1968, the trainee was reenrolled       in a
      machine operator course.      Reports of the enrollee's
      counselor showed that the trainee had a drinking        and
      attendance problem.     He was placed on probation     and,
      after failing   to attend 20 training   classes, his en-
      rollment was terminated     in September 1968 for poor at-
      tendance and inability    to adjust to the program.
       As shown in the above table, the case histories       for 30
percent of the trainees     included in our sample did not con-
tain enough information     to permit a conclusion   on their ap-
propriateness   for enrollment     in the training courses.




                                                                                           ;.,

                                                                                      -, ;
                                                                                        $‘.
                                                                                      ,c /



                                                                                ,,_I,:
                                                                                           . . . 1,
                                                                                                      .

                                                                                      ‘.
                                                                                ..              .1


                                                                          r.          :    :,


                                                                               .’               ‘2


                                                                      :              1:    y:




                                39
because of their potential    for employment without additional
training or because of their participation    primarily to ob-
tain the training  allowance.

     Cases of such individuals       follow.

     Trainee A was a 47-year-old       Army veteran who spent
     22 months at the Center in an auto mechanic training
     course.     His records showed 11 years of military         service
     as an auto mechanic and 2 years of civilian           experience
     as an auto mechanic assembler.         The records indicated
     that the trainee had had auto mechanic experience since
     retirement     from the military    but that an ulcer problem
     had prevented him from working for a long period.              Our
     discussions      with a DHRDrepresentative     indicated    that
     the trainee was apparently       employable without addi-
     tional   training     and that he should have been referred
     to a job.      The counselor's   records stated that the
     trainee probably had not learned a great deal more than
     he already knew from his experience in the Army and
     that he should have been able to obtain jobs in trans-
     mission work and minor auto repairs.

     Trainee B was a 4%year-old       male who was referred       to a
     l-year truck mechanic course which began on February 14,
     1967, reportedly    to fill the local DHRD office        enroll-
     ment quota for this course.        The records indicated      that
     prior to referral    he had been steadily     employed as a mo-
     tel manager for 4 years.      He filed an application        for
     employment at the local DHRD office,        but there was no
     evidence in the records to show whether he had been re-
     ferred to a job.     He apparently     had no particular    prob-
     lems that would prevent his employment, as indicated             by
     his class records at the Center and his previous work
     experience.    On the basis of these factors,        a DHRDrep-
     resentative   agreed with us that he was employable and
     was not in need of skills     training.

           After 230 days of training   as a truck mechanic,
    the trainee obtained non-training-related      employment
    with a shoe repair shop. In our contact with the
    trainee    in September 1969, he advised us that he was
    manager of the shop.


                                   42
Individuals  employed      prior
to completing training

       The case histories     showed that, of 19 trainees     employed
before completing training,       1Qdid  not   appear to need  skills
training,   as demonstrated by their previous work histories,
or did not indicate      an interest   in training,

     The following cases illustrate     the selection      of train-
ees not meeting the criteria    for enrollment.
      Trainee A was a 23-year-old       female who had achieved a
      12th-grade reading level and an eighth-grade           arithmetic
      level.    Prior to her being referred       to the Center, she
      had attended the Opportunities       Industrialization      Center
      in Oakland to improve her typing.         DHRD files did not
      indicate   that she had been referred       to employment when
      she applied for training      although she appeared to be
      employable.     She was enrolled    in a bank teller      course
      on April 8, 1968. After 2 weeks she left the Center TV
      accept employment as a clerk typist         and was employed in
      the same job when we contacted her employer in August
      1969.

      Trainee B was a 36-year-old       male who was enrolled    in
      the aircraft   mechanic course on January 2, 1968, Cen-
      ter records showed that he had completed 2 years of col-
      lege and had had 10 years of experience at various cook-
      ing jobs, 7 years as a personnel clerk in the Army, and
      2 seasons as a line inspector       in a cannery.   The DHRD
      records did not indicate      that he had been referred      to
      employment although he appeared to be experienced          in
      several types of work and to have a creditable         work his-
      tory.   On April 12, 1968, about 4 months after enroll-
      ment, he left to accept employment in a non-training-
      related   job as a laboratory     assistant with a chemical
      company. He was employed in the same job when we con-
      tacted his employer in August 1969.

Individuals   completing      training

      The case histories     showed that, of 28 trainees who had
completed training,     eight had been selected for training     al-
though they did not appear to meet the enrollment       criteria

                                         41
problems that could be taken care of at the Center.         Those
making the assessments were instructed     that alcoholism,    drug
addiction,  severe psychological  disturbances,    and some phys-
ical handicaps could best be served by agencies other than
the Center.

       The DHRD local office manager at the Center advised us
that the assessment-week concept was an interim measure but
that it would be used as long as necessary to ensure the
quality   of trainee selections.   When the assessment concept
was first   placed in operation,  seven applicants    referred   for
enrollment    in a welding course were rejected    by the Center
for such reasons as lack of interest,     absenteeism,    or alco-
holism.




                                44
      Trainee C was a 31-year-old     single female who was ini-
      tially   enrolled in the CEP basic education course on
      September 25, 1967. Her apparent problem was an in-
      ability   to speak English.   Center records showed that
      she had completed 1 year of college in Colombia, South
      America, where she had been employed as a secretary       for
      10 years.     DHRDrecords disclosed    that she could type
      60 words a minute and could take shorthand,      but only in
      Spanish.

            Her counselor noted that she was reluctant   to
      speak English but was capable of doing so, that she was
      not interested   in secretarial-type work, and that she
      had indicated  a strong desire to become a nurse.     Prior
      to completion of the basic education course, she was
      counseled on ways to enter the nursing field.     At one
      time she was considered by the Center as possibly ready
      for employment but she declined employment, stating
      that she wanted only to learn English.

            In April 1968 she enrolled  in a bank teller    course,
     according to a Center official,    primarily  to give her
     added exposure to English and to provide her with money.
     Shortly after the start of the bank teller      course, she
     was given permission by the Center to attend chemistry
     and English classes at a local college.      She was re-
     ferred to a job as a clerk-typist     but did not accept
     the employment, indicating    that she wanted only a part-
     time job in order to continue her classes at college.
     The bank course was completed on October 11, 1968. She
     told us in May 1969 that she was attending      college and
     was not working.


       The DHRDcoastal area director,     in a memorandum dated
June 4, 1969, notified    the local DHRD offices       that the drop-
out rates for trainees were alarming and that more reliable
screening procedures were necessary.       To improve the quality
of referrals,   DHRD and Center officials    instituted      an "orien-
tation assessment week" in June 1969. Under the assessment-
week procedure,   a counselor and a vocational       instructor    in-
terview each trainee to determine (1) the suitability           of the
trainee for the occupation    selected and (2) the trainee's

                                    43
had rejected  only    a few persons     referred    by DHRDfor     more
recent courses.

       The State chief of the DHRD client     division     services
section advised us that a refinement     of the selection         and
referral   process to reduce the number of dropouts would re-
sult, in his opinion,    in screening out many individuals          who
needed special assistance    but who could not obtain it be-
cause other programs to meet their needs to become employ-
able were not available.     He stated, however, that the Cen-
ter was not presently    capable of servicing      individuals     with
serious problems.

         Department of Labor and HEW regional        officials and cer-
tain State officials        generally    agreed that a better match- a
 ing of individuals'      abilities     with the requirements  for en-
rolling     in the training      program was needed to improve the
 effectiveness     of the program.

Conclusions

       Referrals   to the Center of individuals       either not
suited to training      or not in need of training       result   in im-
proper use of program funds and reduce the number of open-
ings available     for persons who can be helped by skills
training.      The screening of an individual      for referral      to
the Center should involve an evaluation         sufficient      to re-
late his needs to his ability       to benefit   from the training
program and to afterwards      obtain gainful    employment.

       The adoption by the Center of a weekly assessment pe-
riod for determining    that suitable  persons have been re-
ferred by DHRDoffices      appears to have had a beneficial   ef-
fect.    Improved screening of applicants    by local DHRDof-
fices,   however, would obviate the need for the Center to
conduct the weekly assessment procedure which was intended
only as a temporary procedure.

Recommendations    to the Secretary      of Labor

     We recommend that      the Manpower Administration          empha-
size to DHRD



                                   46
       Officials     at nine local DHRDoffices which made refer-
rals to the Center advised us that improper referrals                gener-
ally resulted      from the lack of sufficient         time to adequately
screen prospective        trainees.      The officials    told us that
they were given as little           time as 4 or 5 days to fill      their
quota of persons for a particular            course.     They said that,
although their files         showed that a large number of individ-
uals were interested         in particular    types of training,     a
great deal of time would have to be spent in locating                these
individuals.       They said also that in most cases individuals
could not be located at the address shown in the records or,
when located, were found to be employed or to be no longer
interested      in training.

     At two of the local DHRDoffices,       we were told that,
because of the low educational     level of applicants    coming
into their offices,   it was difficult   to find individuals
who met the selection    criteria  for enrollment   in the train-
ing program.    (See p..37.)

      Center officials     told us that they recognized that in-
appropriate   referrals    of individuals      were being made but
that, to avoid showing a high dropout rate, they retained
these individuals      in the training    courses on the premise
that they might benefit       from participating     in the program,

        Center and DHRDofficials          stated that the local DJARD
offices    had been primarily       responsible    for inappropriate
selection     of prospective     trainees.      DHRDofficials     stated
that many of these offices          had used the Center as a "dump-
ing ground" for problem cases or undesirable              persons.      They
also pointed out that it was sometimes difficult               to deter-
mine a prospective      trainee's      true interest    in a particular
course because he might know what subjects were being of-
fered and might express interest             in a course just to be re-
ferred to the Center.

       Center officials  advised us that the assessment-week-
procedure had encouraged the local DHRDoffices       to exercise
better judgment in screening and selecting    individuals    for
referral   to Center programs and that consequently     the Center
COUNSELING
----        SERVICES PROVIDED
        - -B.-.--m-     -I   TO TRAINEES

      Only limited counseling was provided to trainees.   Also,
records frequently  were not maintained on the counseling
that had been provided to the trainees.

     The objective of the counseling       program at the Center
is defined in the Center's Teachers       Handbook, as follows:

     "Counseling     is all those activities     which comple-
     ment teaching by assisting       the trainee to plan
     for a vocational      and or educational    objective;
     examine and evaluate his personal,         interpersonal
     and social functioning;      determine those personal
     characteristics     which contribute     to or impede
     progress toward ultimate      employment."

      To achieve its objectives,   the Center has further        out-
lined in the handbook the following    specific activities
which counselors   should provide.
     --Assist   trainees to understand      and adjust to the train-
        ing program through interviews       and group discussions.

     --Formulate      with the trainee,    in coordination    with the
        instructional      staff, an individualized      plan of ac-
        tion which would enable him to obtain a vocational
        objective.

     --Assist     a trainee to recognize and use his talents    in
        facing and overcoming his deficiencies      and to develop
        skills    to cope with problems which interfere   with
        training.
     --Serve as a resource to instructors         for their under-
        standing of the trainee's  behavior       and adjustment in
        the classroom.

     --Make periodic    evaluations   with instructors    of the
        trainee's  motivation    and attitude   toward the vocation
        and progress in the course.



                                   48
      --that    it be appropriately      selective   in screening   in-
         dividuals   for skill    training,

      --that   individuals  with serious physical handicaps or
         emotional problems be referred,     when possible, to
         programs designed to overcome their particular     prob-
         lems rather than to training    programs for which they
         are not suited,   and

      --that   individuals    qualified    to accept employment with-
         out training     be provided with appropriate     job-
         placement assistance       rather than with training.



        The Assistant   Secretary of Labor for Administration
noted that, to improve the selection         processes, DHRDhad
initiated    a screening procedure (see pO 43) and noted sig-
nificant    improvement; but he also noted that, owing to DHRD's
emphasis on serving the severely disadvantaged,            it was dif-
ficult    to completely   eliminate   inappropriate    referrals  be-
cause of the characteristics        of the severely disadvantaged,




                                     47
       Coun>eling records were available           for 91 of the 93
trainees.    They showed that there had been counseling                 con-
tacts with the trainees       on an average frequency of slightly
more than once a month.        The records showed, however, that
counselors were not regularly          providing     the counseling      ser-
vices outlined    in the Teachers Handbook.             For 52 of the 91
trainees,   there was no information          regarding     the trainees'
backgrounds and personal characteristics;               for 43 trainees
there was no information       reflecting      periodic     evaluations     of
their progress at the Center; and for 53 trainees                 there was
no information    indicating     their vocational         desires or inter-
ests in their training       courses.
        The Center's head of student personnel told us that
counseling    was provided to only those trainees who were hav-
ing obvious problems that affected         their receptiveness      to
the training      at the Center.    He stated that in such cases
the counselor was responsible        for establishing    a trainee's
vocational    objective   and for evaluating     his performance,      mo-
tivation,    attitudes,   and interests.

       He explained that the counseling              records were intended
to reflect     the problems of a trainee as noted by his coun-
selor.     He stated that, if a trainee had no problems and was
performing     satisfactorily         in his training,     there would be no
need for counseling          and little       or no documentation would be
reflected    in the counseling            records.   He stated also that he
did not believe that the counseling                case load was excessive
or that it prevented the counselor from dealing with the
problems of those trainees              in need of counseling    services.
Conclusions
        --
       There is a need to provide all trainees with counseling
services in a planned and systematic manner to help identify
trainees'   problems and to enhance their potential          for obtain-
ing and retaining     employment.     To provide such counseling        to
trainees,   the case load assigned to each counselor must be
set at a reasonable level.        Also, counseling    contacts should
be adequately documented to enhance the counselor's             ability
to recall   pertinent   information,    to facilitate   follow-up
      --Maintain     a written   record of all significant     facts
         regarding    the trainee,     contacts with the trainee,
         evaluations     from contacts     with outside agencies, and
         pertinent    observations.

      The personnel files of 43 of the 116 trainees   in our
randomly selected sample (see p* 19) contained no record of
a counseling    contact.  The files showed that the remaining
73 trainees   had had an average of five counseling  contacts
each, about one contact each month. The counseling      records
generally   noted only that a contact had been made and that
a problem had been discussed.

      We discussed    the lack of more information     in the coun-
seling records with the Center director       in July 1969. He
told us that, during the period covered by our sample, the
counselors had very high workloads which made it impossible
for them to keep the necessary records.         He said that,
although the counseling      may have been performed,    the counsel-
ors frequently    did not record the contacts.      The director
stated that he was placing emphasis on development of better
counseling   records.

       To ascertain whether counseling    had been provided and
improvements had been made on documenting counseling       con-
tacts, we reviewed the counseling     records for 93 trainees
enrolled   in four courses which had been completed or were
still   in process in the fall of 1969. Each of the four
courses in our review had been assigned a counselor.

      Except for having an initial      interview    upon entry to
the Center, the trainees     did not meet regularly         with their
counselors.    The four counselors    assigned to the four
courses stated that their major counseling          efforts     were di-
rected toward helping the trainees       with their day-to-day
problems as they occurred and that other counseling              services
were not provided unless a trainee who had obvious problems
brought them to the attention      of his counselor.         The four
counselors   advised us that the major factor which restricted
their counseling     efforts was the excessively       high case load.
They indicated    that a lower average case load would enable
them to adequately counsel all trainees,          not only those who
came to them with problems.

                                    49
PAYMENTSFOR UNEXCUSEDABSENCES

      Many trainees were paid training     allowances for unex-
cused absences, contrary     to the intent of the MDTA and to
Department of Labor directives.       The Center's payment of al-
lowances for such absences does not contribute       to trainees'
developing   good work habits or becoming aware of the re-
quirements in the world of work.

       Section 231 of MDTA provides that training      agencies be
responsible    for determining   and certifying   (1) whether a
trainee has a satisfactory     attendance record and is making
satisfactory    progress in training    and (2) whether a trainee
had good cause for unsatisfactory       attendance or progress.

      The importance of a trainee's        attendance at MDTA train-
ing courses is stressed in the Department's          handbook and
DHRD instructions,which      state that the payment of training
allowances for days that trainees are absent is dependent
on the training     agencies l determination     of whether a trainee
had good cause for being absent.

      The Center's attendance policy basically      has remained
unchanged since its inception.      The policy requires     trainees
to attend each class to receive the training       allowance,     sub-
ject to certain   circumstances.    For example, the attendance
policy in September 1969 permitted      (1) 1 day of excused
absence each month to take care of personal business,
(2) 1 day of excused absence each month for illness,          (3) ex-
cused absence for court leave, and (4) excused absence for
unusual and unforeseen circumstances.       With the exception
of absence for illness,     all absences were to be approved in
advance.

       For the period February through June 1969, we examined
into the adequacy of the Center's procedures and practices
for ensuring that trainees were not being paid for unexcused
absences.     The procedures require     (1) instructors     to record
and submit daily attendance reports to an attendance office
for posting to a trainee attendance card, (2) the attendance
office   to classify    each reported absence as excused or unex-
cused on the basis of documents submitted by the trainee or
discussions    with the trainee's    counselor,    and (3) the atten-
dance office,     at the end of each pay period,       to furnish a

                                  52
counseling,  to enable the Center to better      evaluate its
counseling  activities,   and to enable continuity     of counseling
in cases of counselor   turnover.

Recommendations to the Secretary       of
Health, Education, and Welfare

       We recommend that the Office of Education examine into
the nature and extent of counseling        services being provided
at the Center and furni,sh appropriate        guidelines   concerning
the case-load levels and the frequency of counseling             con-
tacts.    We  recommend     also that the Office   of  Education   empha-
size to the Center the importance of adequate documentation
of counseling     services.



     The Assistant  Secretary,      Comptroller,    HEW, advised us
that HEWconcurred with our recommendations and stated that
the procedures for their implementation          would be included'
in an Office of Education'<s skills      center handbook which was
being developed and that the handbook would amplify the Of-
fice of Education's  responsibilities       for counseling     services
as set forth in the June 1970 guidelines          on skills  centers.
of unexcused absences and has revised its attendance proce-
dures to effect proper control.   The revised procedure should
preclude the paying of training  allowances to trainees     for
unexcused absences and should help in motivating    enrollees
toward regular class attendance.

Recommendation to the Secretary       of Labor

     We recommend that the Manpower Administration   review
the implementation of the Center's revised attendance proce-
dure to ensure that trainees do not receive allowance pay-
ments for periods of unexcused absences,



      The Assistant     Secretary of Labor for Administration
advised us that the revised attendance procedures instituted
by the Center appeared to be adequate and that the Depart-
ment's regional     staff was making continuing  efforts    to fur-
ther strengthen     the attendance control procedures and to
see that they are fully       implemented.




                                 54
 list of the unexcused absences to the instructors         for their
 use in preparing  the weekly requests for training        allowances.

        Our review of the attendance records and reports for
 trainees   attending the Center during the period February
 through June 1969 showed that an average of 313 trainees
 were in attendance daily,    which accounted for 29,785 train-
 ing days during the period.      The weekly requests for train-
 ing allowances propared by the instructors      showed 2,507
 absences, an absentee rate of 8.4 percent.       The trainee at-
 tendance cards maintained by the attendance office,       however,
 showed 4,083 absences, an absentee rate of 13.7 percent.
 Our analysis of the 1,576-day discrepancy     between these
 records showed that 1,529 were unexcused absences and that
 47 were excused absences.
      The P,576-day discrepancy       in absences resulted generally
from the instructors'     incorrectly    recording unexcused ab-
sences, as shown on the list furnished         by the attendance of-
fice, on the weekly requests for allowances,           Some instruc-
tors told us that they did not use the information           furnished
by the attendance office;      they maintained    their own atten-
dance records and made their own evaluations          of reasons
given by trainees     for their absences,

       The Center director    told us in February 1970 that the
attendance procedure had recently been revised.         He stated
that the revised procedures required the instructors         to for-
ward the weekly requests for training        allowances to the at-
tendance office   for verifying    that the unexcused absences
as shown on the trainee attendance cards list furnished         t:
instructors,   had been correctly     recorded by them on the re-
quests for training    allowances.

        State DHRDofficials      stated that they would review the
adequacy of the revised       attendance procedures in the near .
future.

Conclusions

       Center management has recognized the need to improve
its   controls to ensure that trainees are not paid for periods



                                   53
interviewed   or otherwise obtained data for 66 trainees who
were included in our random sample of 116 and who had com-
pleted training   or had accepted employment before complet-
ing training.    DHRD follow-up       records on these 66 trainees
showed the following     information.

                         3-month follow-up          6-month follow-up
                        Completed Left for         Completed Left for
                           full     employ-           full       employ-
      Status              course       ment          course       ment

Employed                       2            6             5            8
Unemployed                    10            4             3            1
Could not locate               4            5            11            6
No information               -21          -14           -18          -14


      As shown above,      DHRDdid not locate or obtain infor-
mation on two thirds       or more of the 66 trainees through its
mail follow-up.

       Cur follow-up     examinations      and interviews    with the 66
former trainees      and/or their last known employers revealed
that 33 were employed, 20 had been employed earlier                 but
were currently      unemployed, nine had not been employed since
leaving the Center, and four were attending               school.     For 16
of the 20 trainees who became unemployed, we found that
they had quit or had been laid off, or fired;               for four no
information     could be developed.         Former employers told us
that most of the 16 trainees           left employment for such rea-
sons as irregular      attendance and poor job performance.
These trainees might have been aided in overcoming such
problems if follow-up       services had been offered.            With re-
gard to the nine trainees who had not been employed since
leaving the Center, we noted that either very little                  or no
follow-up   assistance     had been offered to them by DHRD.
These persons also, it appeared to us, could have been
helped through appropriate         follow-up    services.

       At the DHRD offices  referring   persons to the Center,
the managers told us that the offices        generally  provided
follow-up    services only when specifically     requested by
former trainees.

                                   56
ASSESSINGRESULTS OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
AND PROVIDING FOLLOW-UPSERVICES TO
TRAINEES IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE

      DHRDdid not develop needed information     on the status
of trainees who left the Center for employment and there-
fore was unable to review the effectiveness     of the training
program and to initiate   changes where appropriate.     Further,
DHRDdid not provide these former trainees with such follow-
up services as additional   training  and placement services.

        The MDTA Handbook states that local employment service
offices    are expected to maintain contact with trainees
after completion of training        to evaluate the effectiveness
of the IYDTAprogram.       Such evaluations     are essential    to pro-
vide. a basis for making program changes.          At the time of our
fieldwork,     DEED was responsible     for mailing a follow-up
questionnaire     at l-, 3-, and 6-month intervals       to trainees
who had completed a training        course at the Center or who
had accepted employment prior to completing training.              Prior
to March 1969 follow-up      questionnaires     to these trainees
were required at 3-, 6-, and 12-month intervals.              DHRD's
internal    procedures also provide for its continued place-
ment assistance     or other aid to trainees who have completed
courses9when circumstances       indicate   the need for such aid.

       DHRDobtained only limited     follow-up   data on former
trainees   from the mail questionnaires.       As of the most re-
cent contact or attempted contact with the 685 former train-
ees who were enrolled    in courses completed in 1968 and had
completed training   or had accepted employment prior to com-
pleting  training,  255 trainees   (37 percent) could not be
located,   287 (42 percent) reported that they were working,
and 143 (21 percent) reported that they were not working.
      Further,   DHRDdid not prepare summary statistics             for
each training    course or for the Center's overall          training
program from the follow-up      questionnaires      obtained from
former trainees.      The questionnaires     therefore    did not pro-
vide a basis for systematic       assessment of the results         of
program operations.

       To further analyze follow-up  data and to obtain an in-
dication   of the potential  need for follow-up services, we
                                   55
would be made available    to skills    centers to provide follow-
up services and that a skills      center was required    to include
staff for this function    in its "base funding" budget which
provides for resources in a separate category specifically
set aside for basic facility     and administrative    staff costs.




                                                                       ;




                                 58
       The manager of the DHRDoffice    at the Center told US
that funds had not been provided for making follow-up       in-
terviews with former trainees or their employers, that he
had to rely on the mail questionnaires      for obtaining infor-
mation on the retention    rate of terminated   trainees, and
that experience had shown a response rate of only about
15 percent to questionnaires    sent out at the 6-month inter-
val.

      DHRDand regional     Department of Labor officials     told
us that follow-up  information      on the status of former train-
ees and follow-up  services to former trainees were essential
but missing components of the Centerss program.          The State
chief of the DHRDclient      division    services section told us
that postplacement   follow-up     would be given greater empha-
sis in the future.

Conclusions

       Our review indicates       that DHRD should place greater
emphasis on the follow-up         of terminated   trainees    to obtain
information    for assessing the results        of program operations
and to identify     trainees who need further        assistance   in ob-
taining   and retaining     jobs.

       Because of the low response rate to the mail question-
naires,   DHRDmay have to personally   contact a sample of
trainees who have left to obtain more complete follow-up
information.

Recommendation to the Secretary         of Labor

      We recolmnend that the Manpower Administration,         to the
extent feasible   within existing    fund limitations,     require
DHRD to obtain information     on the status of former train-
ees and, where the need for assistance       is indicated,     pro-
vide terminees with follow-up     services.


        The Assistant  Secretary of Labor for Administration          ad-
vised    us that, under the new skills   center guidelines,        funds




                                   57
placement and any recommendations for improving the instruc-
tional program.   A local official  of the State Department of
Education told us that he was directed    by his office  in Jan-
uary 1970 to implement this requirement    at the Center and
that he intended to do so.

      We reviewed reports made by the Federal-State    review
team and discussed the monitoring   and evaluation  being pro-
vided to the Center with knowledgeable   officials  in the re-
gional offices   of the Department of Labor and HEW and in the
DHRD and the State Department of Education offices.

       The Federal-State     review team made seven visits     to the
Center during the period March 1967 through June 1968. The
visits    generally   lasted one day and included an inspection
of the facility      and discussions    with Center and DHRDperson-
nel on problems and progress of the Center.           The reports
made by the Federal-State        review team on the results    of the
visits    contained comments on the Center's problems but only
general and brief comments on whether the Center was meeting
program goals, the adequacy of the training         program, the
rate of placement of trainees         in jobs, and the working rela-
tionships     between Center and DHRDpersonnel.        The Department
of   Labor's   directive   regarding        the   Federal-State   review   ef-
fort makes no mention of the specific      areas to be reviewed
and evaluated during a monitoring   visit.




                                       60
                               CHAPTER6

                PROGRAM
                      MONITORINGAND EVALUATION
                   BY FEDERALAT!JDSTATE AGENCIES

        Operations of the Center have not been monitored ade-
q=tely,     in our opinion,        by the Department of Labor, m,
DHRD, or by the State Department of Education.               We believe
that the weaknesses in administration            discussed in previous
sections of this report,           concerning selection    of individuals
for training,      counseling,      unexcused absences, and follow-up
activities,      could have been identified       and possibly    cor-
rected earlier       through more appropriate       and timely monitor-
ing of training        operations.

       Various Federal and State guidelines      require that oper-
ations of the Center and related activities         of DHRDbe moni-
tored.     For example, a memorandum issued by the Department
of Labor in June 1966 states that, for each training          project
having an enrollment     of 200 or more trainees,     a Federal-
State team composed of regional     representatives     of the De-
partment and HEWand of their State counterparts          should re-
view the projects    within 60 days after the start of a proj-
ect and every 4 months thereafter.

      A prior Department of Labor directive          to State employ-
ment security   agencies provides that States make an evalua-
tion of MDTA training    programs at least once each fiscal
year.   The directive   specifies    that the evaluation      be di-
rected to determining    (1) adherence to standards and proce-
dures for recruitment,    selection,      and referral   of trainees,
(2) adequacy of counseling      services,    (3) trends in the num-
ber leaving training    courses and the extent of efforts          to
help trainees   adjust to training,       and (4) accuracy and ade-
quacy of reporting.

       An HEWprogram memorandum issued in June 1969 estab-
lished a requirement         that training      facilities prepare a
written    self-evaluation       for each instructional     program
within 30 days after completion.              It provides that the self-
evaluation      include an assessment of local administration,
instruction,       supervision,     and trainee achievement and

                                    59
primarily   of dealing with the day-to-day        problems noted in
their review of enrollment       and termination     statistics     re-
ceived from the Center for ongoing courses.             They said that
their activities     were not specifically     directed      to identify-
ing program areas in need of improvement and that fund lim-
itations  for staff prevented implementation          of a formal and
effective   monitoring   system.

       The program supervisor   for the State Department of Ed-
ucation told us that the monitoring      performed by his staff
does not follow any definite     plan for evaluating      each train-
ing course.     He also stated that he was not aware of any
HEW guidelines    defining  his department's   responsibilities
for monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

      Effective   and continuous monitoring    of Center and DHED
operations    by Federal and State representatives     is essential
to detect and correct program weaknesses, strengthen        pro-
gram administration,     and better ensure achievement of pro-
gram objectives.

RECOMMENDATION TO THE SECRETARIES
OF LABOR AND OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

      We recommend that the Manpower Administration and the
Office of Education allocate  the necessary funds to ensure
that Center operations  are monitored adequately.


      The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Administration
advised us that the new skills  center guidelines      require
that a Department of Labor and HEW regional     office    team,
working with their State counterparts,   periodically

      --evaluate   the operation  of each skills       center   for
         which they are responsible,
      --assess    conformity   of the operations  with the skills
         center   criteria   and performance standards,   and



                                  62
         Regional    officials     of the Department          of Labor and HEW
and representatives            of DHRD and the State Department             of Ed-
ucation      commented on the lack of funds available                 for hiring
staff     to make systematic         evaluations      of MDTA training       pro-
grams.       State representatives           advised us that greater         defi-
nition      and delineation       of the monitoring          and evaluation     ac-
tivities      to be performed        by their     respective     agencies    was
needed for establishing             a coordinated       and responsible      moni-
toring      system for MDTA programs.

      Regional     officials    of the Department        of Labor told us
that,   except for reviews        of the training       projects      submitted
for approval,      little    monitoring    and evaluation        of Center and
DHRD operations         had been made since July 1968.            They stated
that visits     had been made to the Center           since July 1968 but
that no reports         had been prepared.       They also said that the
heavy work load and shortage            of staff   precluded       their  mak-
ing visits     every 4 months as required          by the June 1966 mem-
orandum.

      The HEW regional         senior    program officer         for MDTA train-
ing in California         told us that the monitoring              and evaluation
of MDTA training        programs was primarily             the responsibility
of the State Department           of Education         and that the regional
HEW staff    limited      its monitoring       activities      to participation
in the visits      performed      by the Federal-State           review     team and
to the review process          for approving        training     projects.

        The HEW regional         program officer            told us also that he
had recently       prepared      written       guidelines        for use by the
State Department         of Education          in evaluating         institutional
training     programs      and that he expected               that these guide-
lines    would be implemented             in May 1970.           The proposed       guide-
lines    would require        the State to periodically                 evaluate
training     conducted      under its State            agency agreement with
HEW and to submit reports               of these evaluations              to the Com-
missioner     within     90 days after           the end of the fiscal             year.
The proposed       guidelines        include       detailed      comments on how
the evaluations        of programs          are to be made.

         DHRD officials    told us that their      monitoring       and eval-
uation     of the Center's     and DHRD's activities        consisted



                                           61
                               CHAPTER- 7

                            SCOPEOF REVIEW

       Our review of the East Bay Skills Center in Oakland,
California,    was directed    primarily      toward analyzing the re-
sults of program operations        of the Center since its incep-
tion in April 1966 through December 31, 1969, and toward
evaluating    the administrative      efficiency      of program areas
such as use of the training        facility,     selection    of individ-
uals for training,     and counseling        and follow-up    services.
      We reviewed applicable     legislation,      policies,    program
documents, reports,    correspondence,       and other pertinent       rec-
ords at the Center, the DHRDoffice           located at the Center,
and other DERD offices     in the Oakland area.          Also, we re-
viewed records and reports at the regional           offices    of the
Department of Labor and HEW in San Francisco,              and at the
DHRDand State Department of Education headquarters               offices
in Sacramento.    In addition,    we interviewed        former trainees
and their employers to obtain their views and comments on
the results   of the training    received by the trainees.

      We randomly selected for review the available       records
for 116 of 1,224 trainees who were enrolled       in the 67 train-
ing courses completed at the Center during calendar year
1968. We considered the trainees'    eligibility,      the appropri-
ateness of their referral  to the Center, the counseling        ser-
vices provided them, and the follow-up     contacts by DHRD.
        Our review was performed primarily   at the Center in
Oakland, 10 local offices     of DHRD in Oakland, offices   of the
Peralta Junior College District     in Oakland, and regional
offices     of the Department of Labor and HEW in San Francisco,
California.




                                    64
       --sumimarize  the team's recommendations    and submit them
          to the appropriate   Cooperative   Area Manpower Planning
          System Committee   and the MDTA Skills   Center Advisory
          Committee.

       The Assistant  Secretary     stated   further   that the Man-
power Administration    was acutely       aware of the importance    of
monitoring   and was working      to develop     and implement  a com-
prehensive   regional  monitoring      system.

        The Assistant   Secretary,      Comptroller,           HEW, advised      us
that HEW, through     the Office      of Education,            had developed       a
project    evaluation   form which required             a report       to the State
agency 30 days after       completion       of a project;          that the State
agency had allocated       an educational          supervisor        to the Cen-
ter and the Junior      College    District-that            administers      the
Center;    and that the allocation          of sufficient          funds to en-
sure that Center operations         were monitored             adequately      had
not been possible     due to budgetary           restrictions.




                                         63
             .,




APPENDIXES
APPENDIX'1
    Page 2

  3. Selection      of Individuals       for Training
  GAO reccmmends that the Department direct the Department of Human
  Resources Development (DHRD) to be appropriately       selective  in
  screening individuals   for skill training,     giving due recognition
  to the existing   ca$%bilities   of the center.
  In order to improve the selection processes, DHRDhas initiated
  a screening procedure and'has noted significant     improvement.   At
  the same time, with emphasis by DHRD on serving the severely
  disadvantaged,   it is difficult  to completely eliminate inappropriate
  referrals   because of the characteristics   of the severely disadvantaged.
   4.   Unexcused Absences
   GAO recommends a review of the implementation         of the center's revised
   attendance procedure to ensure that trainees         do not receive allowance
   payments for periods of unexcused absence.
   The revised attendance procedures instituted   by center management
   appear to be adequate.    Our regional staff is making continuing
   efforts  to further strengthen the attendance record control procedures
   and to see that they are f'ully implemented.

   5. Follow-up Services
   GAO recwnds,    to the extent feasible within funding limitations,
   emphasizing to DHRD the importance of obtaining information    on the
   status of former trainees and provides terminees with needed follow-up
   services.
   Under our new guidelines,    funds will be made available to skills
   centers to provide follow-up services.        When a skills center submits
   its "base funding" budget, they are required to include staff for
   this function.   Base funding is the provision of resources from
   funds apportioned to the States in a separate category specifically
   set aside for basic facility     and administxzbtive  staff costs.
   6.   Effective   Monitoring
                                     .
   GAO recommends development of appropqlate controls and procedures
   and allocate  the necessary funds to ensure that center operations
   are monitored adequately.




                                              68
                                                                                 APPENDIX I
                                                                                     Page 1

                          ?J.S.3DEPARTME&JTOF
                                           LABOR
                 OFFICE   OF TEE ASSISTANTSRCRBTARY
                                                  FORADMINISTRATKON
                                 WASHING’lVN,   D.C.   20210



SEP 23 1970




Mr. Henry Eschwege
Associate Director
U.S. Geneml Accounting         Office
wdingtm,       D. c.     20548
Dear Mr. Eschwege:
This is in xwponse to your request for comments on a draft report
on opportunities      for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of
institutional    training   programs at the East Bay Skills Center,
Oakland, California.
For ease of reference,        our comments follow          the order of recommendations
in the report.
1.   Under Utilfzation       of the Center
The General Accounting Office (680) recommends that the Department
of Labor (DOL) and Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW)
take appropriate steps to either make use of the excess capacity or
have other maslpower training     programs operating in the Oakland area
use the center of skills    training    or ux!.nimi.ze operating costs by
seeklng other possible uses for the present excess capacity.
DOL and HEWdeveloped and issued in June, 1970, new guidelines                   for
the planning and development of skills centers.  The guidelines
encourage other programs to make use of skill center facilities.
Our regional staff is making a continuous effort       to achieve full
utilization      of the center but there is no immediate prospect of
this.      We feel, however, that we should wait to 868 if these efforts
alleviate     the center's excess capacity problem.    If the problem still
persists after a year or so, we will look into the desirability        of
moving to a smaller building,

2, Funding Center Operations            on an Annualized       Basis
GAO recommends that appropriate action be taken to convert                  the funding
of center Operations to an aAAualiZed basis.
Guidefines for the Planning and Development of Skills                  Centers provide
for annualfzed funding.
Annualized   tiding       at the East Bay Skills          Center began in March, 1970.

                                                 67
    APPENDIX II
        Page 1


                          DEPARTMENT   OF     HEALTH,      EDUCATION.         AND   WELFARE
                                            WASHINGTON,        D.C.   20201



OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                                                OCT 2 1970

            Mr. Philip Charam
            Associate Director
            Civil Division
            U. S. General Accounting Office
            Washington, D. C. 20548
             Dear Mr. Charam:

             This is in reply to the General Accounting Office draft report to the
             Congress of the United States on Opportunities          for Improving the
             Effectiveness   and Efficiency    of Institutional     Training Programs at the
             East Bay Skills Center, Oakland, California,          under the Manpower Devel-
             opment and Training Act.       It represents     the consensus of the cognizant
             Office of Education (OE) offices,       the California     State Vocational
             Agency, and the East Bay Skills Center on those findings which pertain
             to the Secretary of Bealth, Education, and Welfare.

             NEED F'OR GREATERUSE OF CENTERFACILITIES
             We concur that appropriate    steps should be taken to make use of the
             excess capacity of the Skills Center.      We are hopeful of additional
             funding during Fiscal Year 1971 which would provide an increase in
             skill  training.    However, before considering    a smaller facility,
             consideration    must be given to the capital   investment,   the local
             community involvement,    and the large expenditures    already incurred.

             METHODOF FUNDIWGAND DESIGN OF TRAINING COURSES
             We concur that appropriate   action should be taken to convert the
             funding of center operations    to an annualized basis. This procedure
             has been reviewed and approved by both Departments - Health, Education,
             and Welfare, and Labor - which will now allow for annualization    of the
             funding of the East Bay Skills Center beginning with Fiscal Year 1971.

             COUNSELING SERVICES PROVIDED TO TRAINEES
             We concur with the recommendation that an examination should be made
             into the nature and extent of counseling servfces at the Center as
             well as furnishing  appropriate  guidelines    and emphasizfng the impor-
             tance of adequate documentation,     These procedures will be required by
             the Office of Education in the Skills Center Handbook which is in
             process and will amplify OE's responsibilities      as set forth in the
             guidelines  for the Planning and Development of Skills Centers.


                                                          70
                                                                    APPENDIX I
                                                                        Page 3

Our new guidelines require, on a timely basis, a Department of
Iabor and Health, Education, and Welfare regional office team,
working with their State ctnmterpsarts, to evaluate the operation of
each skills  center for which they are responsible.   Thia review will:

      a.     Assess conformity to skills     center criteria,    Any deviation
             frm criteria    must be fully   explained and justiffed.

      b.     Judge confo     ty with perfomance standards.     A separate
             written  report for each center detailing   the fIndings and
             relating to the specific    criteria will be submitted to
             the national office with recommendations.

      c.     A sumary of the Team's reccmmendations will be submitted
             to the appropriate CAMFSCommittee and MM!A Skills Center
             Advisory Ccmittee.
The Manpower Administration is acutely aware of the importance of
monitoriug and is working to develop aud.Implement a comprehensive
rqion~lmonitoring; eystem.
We appreciate the opportunity   to review and cament on this report
in draft form. The findings aud recommendations presented should
be of considexuble assistarace to us in our efforts  to efficiently
admiaiater the erkills centers.
Sincerely,




Assistant    Secretary   for Administmtion
APPENDIX III
     Page 1
                  PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF

                THEDEPARTMEXTOFLABORAND

     THE DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

         RESPONSIl3LEFOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE

               INSTITUTIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM


                                       Tenure of office
                                       From            -To
                      DEPARTMENTOF LABOR
SECRETARYOF LABOR:
   James D. Hodgson                 July    1970   Present
   George P. Shultz                 Jan.    1969   June 1970
   W. Willard Wirtz                 Sept.   1962   Jan.    1969
ASSISTANT SECRETARYFOR MANPOWER:
    Malcolm R. Love11            July       1970   Present
    Arnold R. Weber              Feb.       1969   June 1970
    Stanley H. Ruttenberg        June       1966   Jan.    1969

MANPOWER  ADMINISTRATOR:
   Paul Fasser, Jr.                 Oct.    1970   Present
   Malcolm R. Love11                June    1969   Oct.    1970
   J. Nicholas Peet                 Feb.    1969   June 1969
   William Kolberg (acting)         Jan.    1969   Feb. 1969
   Stanley H. Ruttenberg            Jan,    1965   Jan.    1969


       DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

SECRETARYOF HEALTH, EDUCATION,
  AND WELFARE:
    Elliot L. Richardson            June    1970   Present
    Robert H. Finch                 Jan.    1969   June 1970
    Wilbur J. Cohen                 Mar.    1968   Jan.    1969
    John W. Gardner                 Aug.    1965   Mar. 1968



                              72
                                                              APPENDIX II
                                                                   Page 2

 Page 2 - Mr. Philip   Charem



 HEW, through the Office of Education, has developed a project
 evaluation  form which requires   a report to the State agency 36 days
 after completion of e project.      Ii-8 addition, eke State agency has
 allocated  an educational  supervieor     to the Center and the Junior
 College District  that admPnisters the Center.       The allssatisn  of
 sufficient  funds to ensure that Center operatbons are monitored
 adequately has not been possible due to budgetary restrictions.




                       [See GAO note.]




                                    Sincerely   yours,




GAO note:    The deleted comments pertain   to matters discussed
             in the draft report but omitted from this final
             report.                                                       ,i'




                                    71
                                                                   APPENDIX III
                                                                        Page 2
                                PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF
                              THE DEPARTMENTOFLABORAND
            THE DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
                     RESPONSIBLEFOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
                            INSTITUTIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM(continued)

                                                         Tenure of office
                                                         From            -To
        DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
                                         (continued)
ASSISTANT SECRETARY(EDUCATION),
  DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH, EDUCATION,
  AND WELFARE:
    Vacant                         June 1970       Present
    James E. Allen, Jr.            May    1969     June 1970
    Peter P. Muirhead (acting)     Jan. 1969       May     1969
    Lynn M. Bartlett               July   1968     Jan. 1969
    Paul A. Miller                 July   1966     July    1968
    Francis Keppel                 Oct.   1965     May     1966
COMMISSIONEROF EDUCATION:
   Sidney P. Marland, Jr.                         Dec.      1970    Present
   Terre1 H. Bell (acting)                        June      1970    Dec. 1970
   James E. Allen, Jr.                            May       1969    June 1970
   Peter P. Muirhead (acting)                     Jan.      1969    May     1969
   Harold Howe, II                                Jan.      1966    Dec. 1968
ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER,BUREAU
  OF ADULT, VOCATIONAL, AND
  TECHNICAL EDUCATION, OFFICE
  OF EDUCATION:
    Arthur L. Hardwick                            July      1970    Present
    Grant Venn                                    May       1966    June 1970
    John R. Ludington (acting)                    July      1965    May     1966




U.S. GAO,   Wash.,   D.C.

                                           73
APPENDIX                                                             Page

   II      Letter dated October 2, 1970, from the As-
             sistant  Secretary, Comptroller,   Depart-
             ment of Health, Education,    and Welfare,
             to the General Accounting Office                         70

 III       Principal    officials     of the Department of
              Labor and the Department of Health, Educa-
              tion, and Welfare responsible          for the ad-
             ministration       of the institutional     training
              Program                                                 72
                             ABBREVIATIONS

CEP        Concentrated     Employment Program

DHRD       California  State     Department    of Human Resource De-
             velopment

GAO        General Accounting      Office

HEW        Department     of Health,    Education,    and Welfare

JOBS       Job Opportunities      in the Business      Sector   program

MDTA       Manpower Development        and Training    Act of 1962, as
             amended