0 Li it n 0H =I cb cn -- “.I I ..I. “, _.” .._ United States GAO General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20648 Human Resources Division B-215774 January 24,199O The Honorable Paul Simon Chairman, Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity Committee on Labor and Human Resources United States Senate The Honorable Augustus F. Hawkins Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor House of Representatives The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) offers training to economically . disadvantaged youth, many of whom lack basic work skills and remain unemployed even as the economy expands and employers encounter a shortage of qualified workers. This report respondsto your request for information on youth participating in JTPA programs. Specifically, you asked for information on the characteristics of youth (aged 14 to 21) enrolled under the title II-A component of JTPA, the servicesthey received, and the outcomesthey attained. We briefed your staffs on Sep- tember 18 and 19, 1989, on the preliminary results of our review. At that time, your committees were considering legislation to amend JTPA in order to improve targeting of servicesto those most in need and create a separate title for youth programs. The Congressis still considering these amendments. To respond to your request, we analyzed data on a random sample of about 5,000 youth from a nationally representative sample of 63 local JTPA programs. This information was collected in conjunction with our earlier report on services and outcomesfor adults participating in JTPA.’ The results of this study are projectable to all youth participants nation- ally. As in our study on adults, we identified five factors that make it more likely for participants to experience difficulty in the labor market. These factors were being a dropout, a member of a minority group, on welfare, a single parent with dependent child, or without recent work experience. Generally, the more of these characteristics youth have, the greater are their needsfor servicesto assist them in finding and main- taining employment. We classified youth in our sample into three cate- gories of job readiness using the number of these factors participants had-more job ready (0 or 1 factor), lessjob ready (3 or more factors), and an intermediate group (2 factors). artnership Act: Services and Outcomes for Participants With Differing Needs -52, June 9, 1989). Page 1 GAO/IiRTM&MBR JTPA Youth Participants B216774 To determine how closely those receiving servicescompared with those eligible for the program, we used information from the Bureau of the Census’Current Population Survey to classify the eligible youth popula- tion into these samejob-readiness groups. Also, we classified the jobs for which participants were trained into three groups-lower skill, moder- ate skill, and higher skill jobs. We analyzed the servicesthat partici- pants received and the outcomesobtained. Finally, we investigated the association between these services and outcomes.We cannot conclude, however, that services alone affect outcomesfor program participants becauseother factors on which data are lacking, such as motivation or other personal attributes, also may contribute to outcomes, Out-of-school youth-either high school graduates or youth who have dropped out before graduating-were the focus of this report. Out-of- school youth comprise 64 percent of JTPA youth participants, and the services they received and the outcomesthey obtained differed signifi- cantly from those for in-school youth. JTPA emphasizesattaining employ- ment, and out-of-school youth were more likely to receive occupational training and placement in jobs, an immediate result that can be assessed in relationship to the various kinds of training provided. Becausein- school youth were more likely to be in nonoccupational training (includ- ing remedial education and short-term work experience),job placement was much less frequent for them. Program resourcesare not being directed to those out-of-school youth Overview who are lessjob ready and presumably have the greatest need.JTPA appears to serve youth in the three job readinesscategoriesin about the same proportion as their incidence in the eligible population. This is sim- ilar to our findings for adult participants in JTPA. Overall, 66 percent of out-of-school youth were placed in jobs, at an average wage of $4.36 per hour. Placement rates and average wages varied by the kind of services youth received. About half the youth were in occupational training; they were more likely to be placed in jobs, be placed in moderate or higher skill jobs, and receive higher wages than youth in nonoccupational training. About a fourth of the youth were in nonoccupational training; they were more likely to experiencesuch posi- tive outcomes as entering another training program, but less likely than other participants to be placed in jobs. About one-fifth of youth received only job search assistance;their job placement rate was higher, but their wages were lower than the wages of those in occupational training. Both Page 2 GAO/HRD-9048BB JTPA Youth Participants B216774 services and outcomes varied for different demographic groups. In par- ticular, black males were less likely to get occupational training and less likely to get moderate or higher skill jobs. They also tended to get lower wages. requires that services be provided “to those who can benefit from Services Not Targeted JTPA and who are most in need of” such servicesbut does not further define to Youth With this requirement. Judging by our criteria for job readiness,although JTPA serves youth with a wide variety of characteristics that may reduce Greatest Need their ability to gain employment, it doesnot target those most in need. Among out-of-school youth participants, about 42 percent were school dropouts, 53 percent were minorities, 24 percent were from families receiving AFDC, 15 percent were single parents with a dependent child, and 72 percent lacked recent work experience.As shown in figure 1, the program serves youth with the greatest need for assistancein roughly the same proportion as their representation in the eligible population. Both houses of Congresshave been considering legislation that would encourage,and in somecasesrequire, that local JTPA programs target a higher proportion of their resourcesto individuals with major barriers to employment. For example, a House proposal would require that 50 percent or more of participants be out-of-school youth, with priority given to dropouts. However, targeting those with single employment barriers would not necessarily improve the targeting of services,as we noted in testimony delivered in June 1989.”But setting a standard for the proportion with multiple barriers could result in greater emphasis on serving those most in need. The majority of out-of-school youth received occupational training Youth Receiving (including classroom training and on-the-job training). Among those Occupational Training youth receiving occupational training, 69 percent received training for Experience Better moderate or higher skill jobs- similar to the 72 percent of adults who received such training. About a fourth of out-of-school youth received P1acements and WaW nonoccupational training -including remedial education and short-term work experience-designed to improve their basic skills. A fifth of out- of-school youth received only job search assistance. Page 3 GAO/HRD90-46BR JTPA Youth Participants B-215774 . Figure 1: Comparison of JTPA Participants and Eligible Population 50 Porcont 45 40 3s 30 2s 20 15 10 5 0 Job Roadinosa Gmup JTPA ParMpanB Eliiible Poputatitm (t%tmus’Cu~~ent Population Survey) m Overall, 79 percent of out-of-school youth either were placed in jobs (66 percent) or had other positive outcomes(13 percent). The average wage for job placements was $4.36 per hour. Those who received occupational training or job search assistanceonly had a higher placement rate than those who received nonoccupational training, as table 1 shows. Youth who received occupational training were more likely to be placed in moderate or higher skill jobs and have a higher starting wage. Page 4 GAO/HBD9048BB JTPA Youth Participants IS215774 Table 1: Employment Outcomes for Out- of-School Youth by Type of Training Job placements (percents) To moderate or higher skill Average Type of training Total jobs starting wage Occupational 70 41 $4 53 Nonoccupational 48 20 4 09 Job search assistance only 77 27 4 18 Overall 66 32 4 36 Many on-the-job-training contracts entered into by local JTPA programs allowed excessiveamounts of time for training, particularly for the more job ready youth being trained in lower skill jobs. The Department of Labor suggestsa maximum training time of 240 hours for a majority of these lower skill jobs, but actual on-the-job training for thesejobs averaged about 340 hours. Black males were less likely than others to receive occupational training, Black Males Less particularly for moderate or higher skill jobs. About 18 percent of black Likely to Get Moderate males were given moderate or higher skill occupational training, com- or Higher Skill pared with 38 percent of other male participants. Comparisonsbetween black and white male high school graduates, or between black and white Training or Jobs male dropouts, show similar disparities in the proportions getting mod- erate or higher skill training. Although black males were about as likely to be placed in jobs as other male participants, their rate of placement in moderate or higher skill jobs was lower (24 percent) than the rate for other male participants (34 percent). Black males also received lower wages,$4.24 per hour, compared with $4.57 for all other male participants. As requested, we did not obtain Department of Labor written comments on this report. However, we discussedits contents with Labor officials and have incorporated their commentswhere appropriate. We are send- ing copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. Page 6 GAO/HMHO-MBR JTF’A Youth Participants B216774 If you have any questions about the information presented, pleasecall me on (202) 275-1793.Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix X. Franklin Frazier Director, Education and Employment Issues . Page 6 GAO/IU&D~BR JTPA Youth Participants Page 7 GAO/HRDM46BR JTPA Youth Participanta Contents Letter Section 1 Introduction Background Objectives, Scope,and Methodology Section 2 Characteristics of Out-of-School JTPA Youth Participants: Little Evidence of Targeting Section 3 - 23 Services: Occupational Different Groups ReceivedDifferent Services 27 On-the-JobTraining ExceedsSuggestedDuration for 30 Training Predominates Many Lower Skill Jobs Section 4 32 Outcomes: The Less Job Ready Did Not Fare as Well as More Job Ready OutcomesVaried by ServicesReceived 34 36 Majority Are Placed OutcomesMeet JTPA Standards 39 in Jobs Appendixes Appendix I: Comparison of In-School and Out-of-School 42 JTPA Youth Participants: Characteristics, Services Received,and Outcomes Appendix II: Labor Market Successof Job Readiness 44 Groups in the Eligible Population Appendix III: Comparison of Employment Factors and 45 Demographics for Out-of-SchoolJTPA Youth Participants and Eligible Population Appendix IV: Characteristics of Out-of-SchoolJTPA 46 Youth Participants Appendix V: ServicesProvided to Out-of-SchoolJTPA 48 Youth, by Job Readinessand Demographic Groups Pyle 8 GAO/ll.EtDBO-46BEJTPA Youth Participanta Contents Appendix VI: Comparison of Characteristics, Services 50 Received,and Outcomesof Out-of-SchoolJTPA Youth Participants by Raceand Sex Appendix VII: Positive Terminations for Out-of-School 51 JTPA Youth Participants by Job Readinessand Demographic Groups Appendix VIII: Skill Level of Job Obtained by Skill Level 52 of Training Appendix IX: Data Supporting Figures in Text 53 Appendix X: Major Contributors to This Briefing Report 55 Related GAO Products 56 Tables Table 1: Employment Outcomesfor Out-of-SchoolYouth 5 by Type of Training Table 1X.1: Data for Figures 1 and 2.1: Comparison of 53 JTPA and Eligible Population Table 1X.2: Data for Figure 3.4: ServicesVaried for Job 53 ReadinessGroups Table 1X.3: Data for Figure 3.5: ServicesVaried for 53 Demographic Groups Table 1X.4: Data for Figure 4.2: Outcomesfor Job 53 - ReadinessGroups Table 1X.5: Data for Figure 4.4: Outcomesfor Different 54 Types of Training Table 1X.6: Data for Figure 4.5: Outcomesfor 54 Nonoccupational Training Table 1X.7: Data for Figure 4.6: Youth in Occupational 54 Training Got Better Jobs Figures Figure 1: Comparison of JTPA Participants and Eligible Population Figure 1.1: Objectives of Study 14 Figure 1.2: Methodology 15 Figure 1.3: Focus on Out-of-SchoolYouth 16 Figure 1.4: Job ReadinessGroups 18 Figure 2.1: Comparison of JTPA and Eligible Population 21 Figure 2.2: Comparison of Out-of-SchoolYouth and 22 Adults Figure 3.1: Servicesto Out-of-SchoolYouth 24 Figure 3.2: Skill Levels in Occupational Training 25 . Page 9 GAO/Hl&D@MgBIt JTPA Youth Partldpanta Figure 3.3: Occupational Training: Most Frequent Jobs Figure 3.4: ServicesVaried for Job ReadinessGroups z27 Figure 3.5: ServicesVaried for Demographic Groups 29 Figure 3.6: Jobs With ExcessiveOn-the-JobTraining 31 Figure 4.1: Employment Outcomes:Overview 33 Figure 4.2: Outcomesfor Job ReadinessGroups 34 Figure 4.3: Who Got Lower Skill Jobs and Lower Wages? 35 Figure 4.4: Outcomesfor Different Types of Training 37 Figure 4.5: Outcomesfor Nonoccupational Training 38 Figure 4.6: Youth in Occupational Training Got Better 39 Jobs Abbreviations JTPA Job Training Partnership Act SIX service delivery area Page 10 GAO/EBXMOMBIt JTPA Youth Puddpum . Page 11 GAO/llRKMO4BR JTPA Youth Participants Section 1 Introduction Despite the continued economic expansion and a declining unemploy- Background ment rate, disadvantaged youth continue to experience high unemploy- ment rates. As we enter the 1990s it is expected that the skill requirements for jobs will continue to rise and that there will be a shortage of qualified entry workers. Many experts believe that to be economically competitive in international markets we must raise the skill level of our work force. Economically disadvantaged youth have encountered chronic difficulties in getting and keeping jobs that could lift them out of poverty, difficulties often causedby a lack of basic skills or work experience. The purpose of the Job Training Partnership Act (P.L. 97-300) is to pro- vide job training, placement, and other assistanceto economically disad- vantaged individuals who need training or other labor market services to obtain employment. It is administered by the Employment and Train- ing Administration within the Department of Labor. Title II-A of the act established the largest single JTPA program to assist disadvantaged adults and youth. Of the approximately $1.9 billion appropriated for this program in 1989, at least 40 percent was to be spent on youth aged 14 through 21. The title II-A program served about 1.1 million youth and adults and had an average enrollment of about 400,000 in 1987, the most recent year for which data are available. Local srp~ programs are operated by service delivery areas (SDAS), which receive funding through their states according to formulas specified in the act. JTPA was enacted to provide training programs to “economically disad- vantaged individuals and other individuals facing serious barriers to employment,” but the act provides only general guidance on how the program is to be targeted among this large eligible population. Experts have voiced concern regarding the extent to which program resources are targeted to those facing the most serious employment barriers. The March 1989 report of the Job Training Partnership Act Advisory Com- mittee’ recommendedthat the program be targeted more directly to dis- advantaged persons who have serious skills deficiencies or are welfare recipients. Also, legislation was introduced and considered in both housesof Congressthat would encourageand, in somecases,require that SDAS seek to target a higher proportion of their resourcesto partici- pants facing specific barriers. ‘The JTPA Advisory Committee’s report was issued in response to a request from the Secretaq of Labor asking leaders of the job training community to assess their experience with JTPA and contrib- ute to future job training policy formulation. Page 12 GAO/HRLb9O4BR JTPA Youth Participants eectson 1 lntroducdon For example, a Houseproposal would require that 50 percent or more of youth participants be out-of-school youth, with priority given to drop- outs. In June 1989 testimony on this proposal, we pointed out that using single employment barriers to target would not significantly changethe mix of participants (for example, out-of-school youth already comprise 64 percent of participants). We noted that using multiple barriers (for example, requiring that a proportion of participants have at least two barriers, such as being on welfare and a school dropout) could result in greater emphasis on serving those most in need. In our earlier report’ on adult participants, we also raised questions about the nature of servicesprovided. We recommendedthat the Department of Labor increaseJTPA’S emphasis on moderate and higher skill occupational training and collect data necessaryto measure differ- encesin program outcomes associatedwith such training. This report was requested by the HouseCommittee on Education and Objectives, Scope,and Labor and the Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity, Senate Methodology Committee on Labor and Human Resources,who asked that we analyze the characteristics, services,and outcomesassociatedwith youth partic- ipating in JTPA. To complete this study, we compared the characteristics of participants in JTPA with those in the eligible population to determine whether JTPA targets those who are more likely to have difficulty gain- ing employment (see fig. 1.1). We also reviewed the type of services youth received, and the association between those services and the out- comesyouth attained. This report includes somecomparisonsbetween out-of-school JTPA youth participants and adult participants. We used the same data baseon program participants that we developed for our report on adult participants, this time selecting the data on youth for our analysis. For the adult report, we had developed our own comprehensive participant and program data, becausethe information we needed was either not in Labor’s data collection system or lacking in sufficient detail. Our information allowed us to generalize our findings to participants and the national program.3 artnership Act: Services and Outcomes for Participants With Differing Needs -52, June 9, 1989). “The differences in participant characteristics, services, and outcomes noted in the text are statisti- cally significant unless stated otherwise. Page 13 GAO/liRlSMBR JTPA Youth Participants Section 1 Introduction Fiaure 1 .l GM Objectives of Study Participant characteristics *Are services targeted to those most in need? Services received aWhich participants get which services? Outcomes obtained @Whatis the association between characteristics, services, and outcomes? J We first stratified SDAS into three groups according to the number of par- ticipants who had terminated (left the JTPA program for any reason, including job placement, dropping out, or entering another training pro- gram) during program year 1984 (July 1, 1984, to June 30, 1985). We randomly selected 63 SDAS from the three strata, limiting the SDAS in our universe to those within the 48 contiguous states that had at least 100 of both adult and youth terminees during program year 1984. During a visit to each of the 63 SDAS, we randomly selectedbetween 150 and 182 adult and youth participants, depending on program size, from among those who had terminated from the program during program year 1985. Data for 5,467 adults and 5,325 youth were collected (see fig. 1.2). The data on adults were used for our June 1989 report. Page 14 GAO/KRLb9O-MBR JTPA Youth Participants Figure 1.2 GM Methodology Participant data *Random sample of 63 SDAs @Dataon 5,300 youth Focused on out-of-school youth Analysis similar to earlier adult study @Jobreadiness groups l Lower, moderate, and higher skill training and jobs This study of youth participants parallels our adult analysis in the development of job readinessgroups and job skill categories.We dis- cussedour methodology with several experts and local sr%officials. Report Focuseson This report focuseson out-of-school youth-youth who have either Out-of-School Youth graduated from high school or dropped out before graduation-who comprise nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the youth participants in our sample. Individual program goals generally differ depending on whether a youth is enrolled in school or not, and more information is available to assessprogram outcomesfor out-of-school youth. For these youth, pro- grams emphasizepreparation for employment; SIMScoiled data on whether youth find employment, what types of jobs they obtain, and Page 16 GAO/EBDgO-$gBB JTPA Youth Participanta Fiaure -- 1.3 GM Focus on Out-of-School Youth Two-thirds of youth participants are out of school Program objectives for out-of- school youth (in terms of employment) are measurable; data are available Program objectives for in- school youth are difficult to measure; data are unavailable their wage levels (see fig. 1.3). In-schooi youth are more likely to be in nonoccupational training (including remedial education and short- term work experience) and job placement is a less likely program outcome for them; assessing other outcomes is difficult because often SDAS have information only on whether the youth completed the prescribed program.4 41nformation on both in-school and out+f-school youth-their characteristics, services received, and outcomes-is provided in app. I. P8ge 16 GAOYJTPA Youth Partldpmm Out-of-School Youth To determine how well JTPA was serving youth with the greatest need for assistancein obtaining employment, we classified out-of-school JTPA Grouped by Job Readiness youth participants by the number of characteristics associatedwith dif- ficulty in the labor market they had. We relied on previous research (including our review of JTPA adult participants), expert opinion, and our own multiple regression analyses of the Bureau of the Census’Cur- rent Population Survey data to identify the socioeconomicand labor market characteristics associatedwith difficulty in finding and main- taining employment. We identified five major factors associatedwith difficulty in the labor market: l Receiving welfare. l Having dropped out of school. . Being a single parent with dependent child. . Being a member of a minority group. l Lacking recent work experience. Youth who had three or more of these factors were categorized as less job ready, and thus more in need of JTPA services.Youth who had two factors were classified as intermediate in job readiness,and youth with none or one factor were designated as more job ready (see fig. 1.4). Using these criteria, we classified 36 percent of the out-of-school youth as lessjob ready, 35 percent as more job ready, and 29 percent as inter7nediate.j Although we used the same characteristics to classify youth into job readiness groups that we used in our report on adult participants, we modified the way we counted these factors to createjob readiness groups. The most important modification pertained to work experience. For our report on adults, recent work experience was a strong indicator of labor market success,and we weighted it more heavily than the other characteristics. Recent work experience is not as crucial for youth, as youth who have left school recently may have had little opportunity to gain work experience. Therefore, we gave no extra weight to this factor.!j 5App. I summarizes the extent to which youth classified into each of the three job readiness groups had the five different factors associated with difficulty in the labor market. 6We also made two minor adjustments. We counted male single parents with a dependent child as well as females, and we included all minorities, specifically youth who were Asian, Indian, or “other,” among those who might have difficulty in the labor market because they were minorities. Page 17 GAO/HRDBO4BBJTF'A YouthParticipants Figure 1.4 MO Job Readiness Groups Identified factors affecting employment aMinority status Gchool dropout l Welfare recipient Gingle parent/dependent child l NO recent work experience Classified participants *Less job ready: 3-5 factors 4ntermd. job ready: 2 factors @Morejob ready: O-1 factors Validating the Job To validate our definition of job readinesscategories,we analyzed the ReadinessClassifications actual experience of youth represented in the Current Population Sur- vey. We used the survey’s matched data files to track individuals’ char- acteristics and employment over a 2-year period.’ Using criteria similar to those we used with our JTPA sample, we: ‘Current Population Survey data were collected for some individuals in 1983 and 1984 and for some in 1984 and 19% Using these data we were able to compare individual youth employment for two years. For some we compared 1983 to X%4, and for others we compared 19% to 1985. . Page 18 GAO/lilD~BRJTE’A Youth Partidpante !3ectlon 1 htrodtlction l determined the extent of the factors associatedwith difficulty in the labor market among eligible out-of-school youth in the first year of the matched files (1983~84) l assignedthese youth to the three job readinessgroups, and l looked at the annual earnings and number of weeks these youth worked in the secondyear of the matched data files (1984-85). Those whom we classified as more job ready in the first year fared bet- ter in the labor market in the secondyear than those we deemedlessjob ready.” Approach to Data Analysis Becausethe jobs for which JTPA participants received occupational and Limitations training varied widely, as did the jobs participants obtained at termina- tion, we employed a classification schemeto characterize the skill level of jobs. With assistancefrom Bureau of Labor Statistics officials, we classified eachjob as being a lower, moderate, or higher skill level posi- tion We then used the classifications in analyzing the skill level for which participants received occupational training and the skill level of jobs they obtained. The unavailability of follow-up information on most participants pre- vents us from determining whether participants who were employed at . termination maintained that status, or whether other participants later found jobs. Becausethere is no control group (a group of similar individ- uals not enrolled in JTPA) we could not conclude definitively that partici- pants’ outcomes were the result of JTPA servicesrather than other factors, such as motivation or other personal attributes, unrelated to their participation in JTPA. Moreover, becauseit is not feasible to ran- domly assign participants to specific types of training, we cannot say with certainty that the training, per se, is a major factor determining participants’ outcomes. Our audit was conducted in accordancewith generally acceptedgovem- ment auditing standards. 8App. II shows the earnings and weeks worked in each year for each job readiness group in the eligible population. . Page 19 GAO/HBD9046BB JTPA Youth Participants Chamcteristics of Out-ofSchool JTPA Youth Participants: Little Evidenceof Targeting A comparison of the JTPA out-of-school youth sample and the eligible population indicates that there is little targeting of servicesto those with the greatest need-the lessjob ready. But there is also little evi- dence that JTPA is “creaming” by serving a disproportionately high number of those who have less need-the more job ready. We reported similar observations in our earlier report on adult participants. As fig- ure 2.1 illustrates, JTPA servesyouth who are lessjob ready and those who are more job ready in roughly the sameproportion as their inci- dence in the population. Among the JTPA youth participants, about two-thirds were outof-school. More than half of these out-of-school youth were minority members, nearly half were school dropouts, and most lacked recent work experi- ence (see fig. 2.2).1Out-of-school youth on average were 19 years old, compared with 30 years for adult participants. Among out-of-school youth, males were more likely than females to be white or dropouts, while females were more likely to be minority mem- bers, single parents with dependent children, high school graduates, or on welfare. Younger out-of-school youth, those aged 15 to 17, were more likely than youth aged 18 to 21 to be dropouts and to lack recent work experience.2 Out-of-school youth participants were roughly similar to in-school youth in several characteristics, including welfare recipiency, minority status, and gender. Out-of-school youth were older on averagethan in-school youth, and a higher proportion were single parents with dependent chil- dren or had recent work experience.3 ‘The characteristics of JTPA out+f-school youth participants, the eligible population, and job readi- ness groups are compared in app. III. ‘Detailed information on the characteristics of out+f-school youth appears in app. IV. 3App. I compares the characteristics of in-school and out+f-school youth. Page20 GAO/HRD9&46BR JTPA Youth Participants !kction 2 Charactetitim of Out+f-School JTPA Youth Parddpantuz Little Evidence of Targeting Figure 2.1 I MO Comparison of JTPA and Eligible Population 45 40 35 30 w 20 15 10 5 0 Page 21 GAO/HBKHO4BR JTPA Youth Participants !htion 2 tZmumterlam of Ont~f-School JTPA Yoath Putidpnntll: Little Evidence of Targeting Fiaure 2.2 m Comparison of Out-of-School Youth and Adults Youth Adults Percent #Minority status 53 42 Gchool dropout 42 27 l Welfare recipient 24 24 @Singleparent/dep. child 15 31 *No recent work exper. 72 72 Page 22 GAO/HBD90-46BB JTPA Youth Participanta Section 3 Services:OccupationalTraining Predominates About half of the out-of-school JTPA youth participants received occupa- tional training, a majority of which was for moderate or higher skill occupations. A fourth of the out-of-school youth received nonoccupa- tional training, and about a fifth got job search assistanceonly (seefigs. 3.1 and 3.2).1Among adults, the extent of occupational training was greater (nearly two-thirds), and fewer adults received nonoccupational training (less than a tenth). Certain groups of youth, particularly the lessjob ready, those aged 15 to 17, dropouts, and black males, were more likely to get nonoccupational training and less likely to get moder- ate or higher skill occupational training than the average for all partici- pants. Nonoccupational training may be the more appropriate assistance for dropouts. As with adults, youth, particularly the more job ready, were often given on-the-job training in lower skill jobs for periods exceedingthe length of time usually required for suchjobs. Of the three major categoriesof servicesto youth-job search assis- tance, occupational training, and nonoccupational training -job search assistanceis usually the shortest in duration. It usually consists of short-term counseling and training in how to look for employment. %aining for in-school youth differed, with about 75 percent participating in nonoccupational train- i~&~articularly exemplary youth programs. Information on services to in-school youth appears in Page 23 GAO/‘ERD33-46BIt JTPA Youth Participants section 3 services: ckcupationai Tmining Predominates Figure 3.1 GA3 Services to Out-of-School Youth Occupational training--53% 025% classroom 029% on-the-job training Nonoccupational training--26% l12% remedial education 08% work experience 07% exemplary youth program Job search assistance only-21 % Page 24 GAO/IIBD30-46BB JTPA Youth Participants Section 3 st~cts: occupationAl ,rrahagpredominatta Figure 3.2 GM Skill Levels in Occupational Training Moderate and higher skill train- ing predominates among those getting occupational training... aHigher skill 20% aModerate skill 49% ...yet many get lower skill training l Lower skill 31% Page 26 GAO/HRDWBlt JTPA Youth Participants section 3 !3ervicta: occupational TlwinhgPredominatta Figure 3.3 G&Q Occupational Training: Most Frequent Jobs - Lower skill jobs *Custodian, food service worker, machine operator, assembler, cashier Moderate skill jobs *Clerk/typist, secretary, salesperson, nurse’s aide, construction worker Higher skill jobs .Electronic technician, auto mechanic, machinist, computer programmer, welder Occupational training, which may take place either in the classroomor on the job, gives youth training for specific jobs (seefig. 3.3). JTPA funds may be used to subsidize on-the-job training through payments to employers that may average up to one-half the total of the wagespaid to youth participants. Nonoccupational training is of three types-remedial education, work experience, and exemplary youth programs-each designedto address participants’ needs for basic work or classroomskills. Remedial educa- tion emphasizesbasic literacy and math. Work experience is typically short-term or part-time work designedto teach good work habits. Exem- plary youth programs may incorporate remedial education, work experi- Page 20 GAO/IiIUb9O-46BB JTPA Youth Participants !StctionS st~cta: occupational TrainhgPrtdomina~ Figure 3.4 GAQ Services Varied for Job Readiness Groups 70 60 so 40 30 20 10 0 a ence, and/or job search assistance in an “education for employment” program targeted to dropouts or those with educational deficiencies. Occasionally youth received occupational training in addition to non- occupational training, and a few had two types of nonoccupational training or both types of occupational training. Youth who were classified as more job ready were more likely to receive Different Groups occupational training, often for moderate or higher skill jobs, than were Received Different the lessjob ready. In contrast, those classified as lessjob ready were Services more likely to be enrolled in nonoccupational training (see fig. 3.4). Page 27 GAO/I-IRISMBR JTPA Youth Participants stttions strvloer: octup8tional ,rddngpndondnat.tel Dropouts and youth aged 15 to 17, many of whom were classified as less job ready, were also more likely to receive nonoccupational training than youth who were older or high school graduates. Drop- outs and youth aged 15 to 17 were less likely to get occupational training, including moderate or higher skill training. Nonoccupa- tional training, especially remedial education or exemplary youth programs, is likely to be beneficial for dropouts, as they tend to lack the basic literacy skills necessary for training or placement in any jobs except those with lower skill requirements. About a third of school dropouts were enrolled in remedial education or in exemplary youth programs. Dropouts may be in a position to benefit more from occupational training when it is accompanied by either remedial edu- cation or participation in exemplary youth programs. About 2 per- cent of all out-of-school youth were enrolled in either exemplary youth programs or remedial education and also in occupational training.* Blacks, particularly black males, were more likely to receive either non- occupational training or job search assistanceonly, and less likely to be enrolled in moderate or higher skill occupational training than others. About 36 percent of black males were given occupational training, with 18 percent in moderate or higher skill training. Among other male par- ticipants, 60 percent were given occupational training, with 38 percent in moderate or higher skill training. Comparisons between blacks and others in the samejob readiness groups, between black high school graduates and white high school graduates, or between black dropouts and white dropouts also show dif- ferences in types of training. For example, black male high school gradu- ates were about two-thirds more likely than white male high school graduates to receivejob search assistanceonly, and about half as likely *Detailed information on services to job readiness groups and other demographic groups appears m app. V. . Page28 GAO,'ERD~BR~AYouthParticipanta Section 3 servicea: occupational TraMngPnEd0mina~ Figure 3.5 GAQ Services Varied for Demographic Groups Graduates Dropouts . to receive training for moderate or higher skill occupations (see fig. 3.5). Comparisons between white and black females reveal a similar pattern, although the differences are not generally as great as for males.3The proportions of Hispanics receiving various services were roughly similar to the proportions of whites receiving those services.4 31nformation on wvices to black and white female high school graduates and dropouts is included in app. IX along with the data supporting fig. 3.6. ‘App. VI provides detailed information on services to white, black, and Hispanic males and females. . Page 29 GAO/HRDM-MBE JTP’ Youth Participants section3 servicee: &!cupational TminingRed0mIna~ As with adults, out-of-school youth, particularly the more job ready, On-the-Job Training often received longer on-the-job training for lower skill jobs than the Exceeds Suggested maximum typically neededfor such positions (see fig. 3.6). For all lower Duration for Many skill jobs, on-the-job training averaged356 hours, or nearly 9 weeks at 40 hours per week. Yet the majority of thosejobs usually required no Lower Skill Jobs more than 240 hours of training, according to Department of Labor information on duration of vocational preparation.6 Our analysis showed that the average time spent in training for those jobs requiring no more than 240 hours was 341 hours, and nearly half of the youth receiving training for thesejobs were trained for longer than 240 hours. The excessivetimes were concentrated generally among the more job ready. Over 60 percent of those receiving excessively long on-the-job training for lower skill jobs were more job ready, and about 11 percent were less job ready. Extra training time might be justified for those who are less prepared for employment or who have other problems. In many cases, however, the extra training time appeared to be providing excessive wage subsidies to employers. ‘Labor cksifies occupations according to the typical length of training time. Most lower skill jobs are in the category for jobs needing from a few hours up to 30 days of training. Because it was not possible to determine which of the jobs within this category require fewer than 30 days, we used the 30day (240-hour) maximum as the standard. Page 30 GAO/H.BD9O48BB JTPA Youth Participants Se&on 3 se~~occupati0nal ,lkamlgpRdominates Figure 3.6 GAO Jobs With Excessive On-the-Job Training Job Average hours Hours in for contracts excess of . 240 maximum Assembler 391 151 Laborer 428 188 Landscaper 422 182 Custodian 413 173 Packer/wrapper 338 98 Page 31 GAO/HBD9O-46BB JTPA Youth Participant-s Section 4 Outcomes:The Majority Are Placedin Jobs Over three-fourths of out-of-school youth achieved positive outcomes upon termination from JTpA-nearly two-thirds were placed in jobs, and 13 percent more left for other positive reasons.The latter included attaining youth competencies;lcompleting a specific part of their educa- tion; or entering other training, the armed forces, an apprenticeship program, or other schooling. In comparison, 72 percent of adults were placed in jobs, with an additional 5 percent terminating for other posi- tive reasons.Lessjob ready youth did not fare as well as those who were more job ready. As was the casefor adults, in eachjob readinessgroup most youth who received moderate or higher skill occupational training and were placed in jobs tended to get moderate or higher skill jobs. In general, youth who received nonoccupational training were about as likely as other youth to achieve positive outcomes.These outcomeswere more likely to be termi- nation for other positive reasons,and less likely to be for employment. Among out-of-school youth placed in jobs, 79 percent were placed in full-time positions. The average wage for all those placed was $4.36 per hour, with about half placed in lower skill occupations, and the other half placed in moderate or higher skill occupations (see fig. 4.1). In com- parison, adults averaged $4.96 per hour for those placed in jobs, and about 59 percent of those jobs were in moderate or higher skill occupations. ‘Youth competencies are skills that improve employability. These competencies are determined by the local program and include a variety of skills, such as typing, remedial education, or career Planning. Page 32 GAO/HBD90-46BB JTPA Youth Participants Section4 Chm The Majority Are Placed in Jobe Fiaure 4.1 GAQ Employment Outcomes: Overview Two-thirds placed in jobs at wages averaging $4.36/hour Jobs less likely for those @Lessjob ready 0111 nonoccupational training Half the jobs are moderate or higher skill occupations Skill of jobs related to skill of training Page 33 GAO/IiRMO&BR JTPA Youth Participants Section 4 Outcomes The biajority Are Placed in Joba Figure 4.2 GAO Outcomes for Job Readiness Groups Overall, 72 percent of lessjob ready youth participants experienced pos- Less Job Ready Did itive outcomes,compared with 84 percent of the more job ready. The Not Fare as Well as lessjob ready were more likely to experience other positive outcomes, More Job Ready such as completing youth competencies,but less likely to obtain jobs (54 percent) compared with the more job ready (78 percent) (see fig. 4.2). The skill level of thesejobs also tended to be lower, with 23 percent of the lessjob ready getting jobs at a moderate or higher skill level, com- pared with 40 percent of the more job ready.2Jobs for the lessjob ready “Information on termination for all three job readiness groups and for demographic groups is con- tained in app. VII. Page 34 GAO/HlUMMtlBB JTPA Youth Participants Section 4 Outcomea The Majority Are Plnced in Jobe Figure 4.3 GAQ Who Got Lower Skill Jobs and Lower Wages? Lower skill jobs and wages @Lessjob ready .Dropouts 4 5-l 7 year olds @Blackmales Lower skill jobs aMales - Lower wages lFemales L tended to pay somewhat less on average ($4.25 per hour) than jobs for the more job ready ($4.44 per hour), although this difference was not statistically significant. As would be expected, moderate or higher skill jobs generally offered higher wages than lower skill jobs. Within demographic groups, the percentagesobtaining employment varied. For example, youth aged 15 to 17 and dropouts, many of whom were among the lessjob ready, were less likely than averageto be placed in jobs or to experience other positive outcomes(seefig. 4.3). The jobs obtained were often at wages below the averageof $4.36 per hour or at lower skill levels. Overall, males were more likely than females to obtain jobs and get higher wages. Black males were just as likely as Page 31 GAO/liRD90-4gBR JTPA Youth Participants Section 4 Onteoma:TheM~JorAtyArePlacedinJoim others to obtain jobs, but starting wages for black males averaged $4.24 per hour and about 24 percent of black males got moderate or higher skill jobs. For other male participants, wages averaged $4.57 and the placement rate in moderate or higher skill jobs was 34 percent. Most out-of-school youth who received occupational training and were Outcomes Varied by placed in jobs obtained jobs at the sameskill level as their training. This Services Received was true for eachjob readinessgroup. Overall, the lessjob ready were less likely to be placed, but among those placed, those receiving moder- ate or higher skill training were likely to obtain moderate or higher skill jobs.3In general, these moderate and higher skill jobs offered higher wages than lower skill jobs. Becauseparticipants were not randomly assignedto receive higher or moderate skill training, we cannot conclude with any certainty that the level of training itself was the major factor in job outcomes.Differences in such characteristics as motivation or personal appearance,for exam- ple, may explain why someyouth received higher or moderate skill training and others with a similar degreeof job readinessreceived lower skill training. Nevertheless,our data do indicate a possible relationship between the skill level of job placement and the skill level of training. This outcome for youth is similar to that reported for adults. . Overall, the rate of positive outcomeswas at least 70 percent for out-of- school youth regardlessof the kind of service they received, but the rate of job placement varied. Over three-fourths of those receiving only job search assistancewere placed,4and about 70 percent of those in occupa- tional training also got jobs. Nonoccupational training is designedto give participants basic education and work skills and does not necessarily aim at immediate job placement. Only about half the out-of-school youth in nonoccupational training were placed in jobs, but many achieved youth competenciesor other positive terminations (see fig. 4.4). 3App. VIII compares the skill level of occupational trainkg with the skill level of the jobs participants obtained. 4Some practitioners believe that this placement figure may be explained by the practice of some SDAs counting individuals receiving only job search assistance as enrollees only after they have been placed in a job, thus increasing the percentage of participants placed. Page 36 GAO/H6tK&90-4gBR JTPA Youth ParticiPants !3ection 4 Outcomes: The Majority Are Placed in Jobe Figure 4.4 GAO Outcomes for Different Types of Training Page 37 GAO/HRLHO46BB JTPA Youth Participants !Secdon 4 Outcomes The Majority Are Placed in Joba Figure 4.5 GAQ Outcomes for Nonoccupational Training 00 70 60 so 40 30 20 10 0 Among youth in nonoccupational training, those receiving remedial edu- cation were least likely to gain employment. As figure 4.5 illustrates, about a third of those in remedial education were placed in jobs, com- pared with over half the youth in exemplary youth programs or work experience. Although youth in remedial education often obtained other positive outcomes, the total for positive terminations was lower than for youth in other types of nonoccupational training. Youth in occupational training were more likely to get moderate or higher skill jobs, at higher wages, than were youth who got nonoccupa- tional training or job search assistanceonly (see fig. 4.6). Over half the . Page 38 GA0/IiRD9046BR JTPA Youth Participants !3ectlon 4 OutcomeszTheIbWorltyAntPhcedhJoba Figure 4.6 GAQ Youth in Occupational Training Got Better Jobs Moderate or higher skill jobs Wages/hour 407 30 20 10 . 0 youth in occupational training who obtained jobs were placed in moderate or higher skill positions, compared with a third of those who got jobs after receiving job search assistance only. On a national basis, JTPA meets the youth standards set by Labor for Outcomes Meet JTPA positive outcomes and exceedsit for job placements. These national Standards standards for youth, which are revised periodically and which states may adjust to account for local economicconditions, are written for all Page 39 GAO/HRD9046BR JTPA Yooth Participants youth, not just those who are out of schooL6For program year 1985, the standard specified that 82 percent of JTPA youth participants should achieve positive terminations, including 41 percent placed in jobs. According to our analysis, 82 percent did experience positive terminations, including 56 percent placed in jobs.” ‘Information on outcomes for in-school youth is included in app. I. % program year 1986, the deftition of positive terminations did not include attain@ youth compe- tencies, but in the next year the deftition was amended to include this category. The 82 percent we report for positive terminations in 1986 includes those who ternGnat after attaining youth competencies. Page 40 GAO/EiRlMO&BR JTPA Youth Participanta Page 41 GAO/ERDMBR JTPA Youth Participanta Ppe A&i&xrison of Irdchool and Outafschool JTPA Youth Participants: Characteristics, ServicesReceived,and Outcomes Fiaures In percents (except waqes/hours) Total JTPA youth participant8 In school Out of school Characteristic: TotaP 100 36 _--~- 64 Age: 15-17 35 74 1; 18-21 65 26 86 Sex: Males 50 51 50 Females 50 49 50 Job readiness: b b Less job ready 36 b Intermediate rob readv b 29 b b More iob readv 35 Race: White 49 52 47 Black 34 31 36 Minoritv (Total) 51 48 53 School dropout 27 0 42 Welfare 24 25 24 Single parent/dependent chrld 11 3 15 Lackina recent work exoerience 78 88 72 Services received: Occupational training: 38 12 53 Classroom training 18 6 25 On-the-rob trainina 21 7 29 Skull level of all occupational trainina: Hiaher 7 2 10 Moderate 17 4 25 Lower 12 6 16 Nonoccuoational trainrna: 44 75 26 Remedral education 10 5 12 Work expenence 11 17 8 Exemplary youth 24 55 7 Job search assistance only 18 13 21 (continued) Page 42 GAO/HED@O&lBR JTPA Youth Participanta ; IT’? ‘, Apgendix!. ii / 1 i : 1 . ’ Compnrimon of IMchoo~ and Ont-ofkchooI JTPA Youth Participant~~: Chuacterbties, Servfces Received. and Outcomes Total JTPA youth participants In school Out of school Poritive tmnin8tions: Employment: 56 36 66 Wages/hour $4.20 $3.66 $4 -36 Skill level of iob: Higher 5 2 7 Moderate 21 12 25 Lower 30 23 34 Entered school or tralntng, or completed school 8 14 5 Attatned prescribed competencies 18 35 8 Total Dositive terminations 82 85 79 aFigures may not add to totals because of rounding or because some partlclpants recewed duplicate serwces and some recewed unspecrfied other servtces. ‘Not applicable Page 43 GAO/HRD-90-46BR JTPA Youth Participants Appendix II Labor Market Successof Job ReadinessGroups in the Eligible Population Job readiness Labor market outcome Total More Inter. Less Average annual earnings: 1st year _____ $1,024 $1,720 $743 $445 2nd vear 2.383 3.329 2.376 ___-- 1094 Average weeks worked: 1st year 10 18 7 5 2nd year 18 25 16 9 Source, Current Population Survey (1983/&. 19&/8!5) Page 44 GAO/HBD90-46BB JTPA Youth Participants Appendix III Comparisonof hployment FWmi and. Demographicsfor Out~f-School JTPA Youth Participants and Eligible Population Figures tn percents Job readiness Totals More Intermediate Less JTPA Eligible JTPA Eligible JTPA Eligible JTPA Eligible participants population participants population participants population participants population Factor: Minority 76 Single parent 15 18 2 2 7 5 36 49 Welfare 24 17 2 2 9 5 58 44 Dropout 42 40 12 7 42 41 71 73 No recent work expenence 72 82 37 57 84 93 96 98 Dem;traphic : Sex: -__ Male 50 39 56 45 53 45 39 28 Female 50 61 44 55 47 55 61 72 Percent in job readiness wow . . 35 34 29 33 36 33 Source, Data for eligible population taken from Current Population Survey (March 1985 Supplement) Page 45 GAO/HRD-BM5BB JTPA Youth Participants Appendix IV Characteristicsof Out-ofschool JTPA Youth Participants Figures In percents Single Lackin Age in years School Welfare parent with recent wo r! Job readiness 15-17 18-21 dropout recipient dep. child experience Less Inter. More Total 14 88 42 24 15 72 38 29 35 Sex: Males ‘15 85 46 15 3 70 28 32 40 Females 12 88 38 32 28 74 43 27 30 Race: White 12 88 37 18 11 63 12 26 62 Mlnonty 14 86 45 29 20 80 57 32 1-i Education: School dropouts 28 72 100 30 15 81 61 29 10 High school graduates 4 96 . 20 15 66 18 29 53 Age in vears: 15-17 100 . 84 29 8 86 54 35 11 18-21 . 100 35 23 17 70 33 28 39 Page 46 GAO/?IRD!KMt3BB JTPA Youth Participants Page 47 GAO/lIltDWBR JTPA Youth Participanta Appendix V ServicesProvided to Out~fsChool JTPA Youth, by Job Readinessand DemographicGroups Figures In percents Occupational training Total* Classroom OJT Total Job readiness: Less 40 26 16 Intermediate 49 22 27 More 64 24 42 Sex: Males 53 18 36 . Females 52 31 23 Race: White 60 22 40 Minoritv 46 27 20 Education: School drooouts 40 18 2i Hiqh school graduates 62 29 34 Age in years: 15-17 27 15 13 18-21 57 26 32 Page 48 GAO/li.ED~BR JTPA Youth Participanta Appeadfx V 23ehceoRwfdsdtoolltQf~mA Yeah, by Job -md DenwrapbieGroupa Job search Skill level of all occupational training Nonoccupational training assistance Higher Moder. Lower Total. Remed. educa. Work exper. Exemp. youth only 10 25 18 26 12 8 7 21 5 21 12 40 21 9 8 20 8 23 16 28 11 9 8 24 20 22 15 17 19 26 11 8 7 21 6 32 13 27 14 8 7 21 14 26 19 22 10 8 7 18 7 24 14 31 14 8 6 24 7 18 13 42 23 9 10 18 12 30 19 15 4 7 4 23 4 13 9 57 29 11 16 16 11 26 17 22 10 8 5 22 aFigures may not add to totals because of rounding or because some participants recewed dupkate services and some received unspecified other servtces. . Page I@ GAO/I~IDSO-~I~BE JTF’A Youth Participanta Comparisonof Characteristics,Services Received,and Outcomesof Out~fsChool JTPA Youth Participants by Raceand Sex Ftaures in percents (except waaes/hour) Male Female White Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic Characteristic: Percent of total sample 26 15 7 21 21 Aae. 15-17 14 16 20 11 12 1: 18-21 86 84 80 89 88 8E Job readrness Less 7 50 56 18 62 se Intermediate 28 37 33 25 28 2’ More 65 13 11 58 10 15 School drooout 41 50 56 33 36 4. Welfare 3 Sinqle parent/dep. child 3 4 2 21 37 26 Lacktng recent work experience 61 79 60 65 81 75 Services received:’ Occupatronal tratnrna: 60 36 62 62 41 63 Classroom trainrnq 16 17 26 29 28 44 On-the-lob trarning 44 19 38 34 13 2; Skill level of all occupational trarnrna, Htqher 19 6 20 8 4 2 Moderate 18 12 23 35 23 49 Lower 21 16 19 17 11 10 Nonoccupatronal trarntna: 22 36 17 21 35 21 Remedral education 10 14 9 12 16 10 Work experience 8 9 4 8 9 4 Exemplary youth 6 9 5 8 5 6 Job search assistance onlv 18 28 21 18 24 16 Positive terminations: Employment 69 66 70 68 58 62 Wages/hour $4.51 $4.24 $4.79 $6.12 $4.23 $4 62 Skrll level of job: Higher 13 4 15 4 2 4 Moderate 21 20 20 30 28 38 Lower 36 42 35 33 28 21 Entered school or trarnrng, or completed school 4 5 2 5 5 3 Attarned prescribed competencies 8 10 5 6 11 8 aFlgures may not add to totals because of rounding or because some partlclpants received duplicate services and some received unspeclfled other services. Page 50 GAO/HRD9O-MBB JTPA Youth Participants Appendix VII Positive Terminations for Outaf-Schwl JTFtA Youth Participants by Job Readinessand DemographicGroups Figures in percents (except wages/hour) Other positive terminations Entered other Employment training or Attained schooling or Total Skill level prescribed completed positive Placed Wages/hour Higher Modemto Lower competencies school termination@ Total 66 $4.36 7 25 34 8 5 79 Job readiness: Less 54 4.25 4 19 31 12 6 72 Intermediate 65 4.31 7 25 33 9 4 78 More 78 4.44 10 30 38 4 3 a4 sex: Males 69 4.47 10 21 38 8 4 ai Females 83 4.24 4 30 30 8 5 76 Race: White 69 4.34 9 25 35 7 4 a0 Minority a3 4.37 5 26 33 9 4 77 Education: School dropouts 54 4.18 5 17 32 13 6 73 High school graduates 75 4.45 a 31 35 5 3 a3 Age in years: 15-17 47 3.89 3 14 30 19 9 75 la-21 69 4.41 8 27 34 7 4 79 aFigures may not add to totals because of rounding. Page 51 GAO/IflZD%MgBR JTPA Youth Participants Appendix VIII SkillLevel of Job Obtainedby Skill Level of Training Fiaures In Dercents Level of job obtained Percent Moderate Level of training placed or higher Lower Job readiness: More, Moderate or higher 76 04 1C Lower a0 6 94 intermediate: Moderate or hlqher 67 82 1s Lower 72 11 89 Less: Moderate or hiaher 57 81 1G Lower 64 6 93 Totals: Moderate or higher 69 04 1t Lower 73 7 93 Page 52 GAO/HRD-9046BR JTPA Youth Participants Appendix IX Data Supporting Figures in Text Table 1X.1: Data for Figures 1 and 2.1: Comparison of JfPA and Eligible Figures in percents Population Eligible Job readiness group: JTPA patiicipants population More 35 34 lntermedtate 29 33 Less 36 33 Table 1X.2: Data for Figure 3.4: Sewices Varied for Job Readinebr Qroups Fiaures in cercents Intermediate Progmm activity: More job ready job ready Lesr job ready Occupational training 64 49 40 Nonoccupational trarning 14 28 40 JSA only 22 24 20 Table 1X.3: Data for Figure 3.5: Servicer Varied for Demographic Groups Figures in percents Hiah rchool amdurks School dropoutr Program activity: White Black White Black Males: JSA only 18 30 18 26 Moderate/higher skill occupational training 46 24 23 13 Nonoccupational training 9 26 42 46 Females: JSA only 20 28 12 18 Moderate/higher skill occupational training 48 35 32 15 Nonoccupational training 12 23 39 56 Table 1X.4: Data for Figum 4.2: Outcomes for Job Readiness Oroupa Figures in percents Placed in Other positive Job readiness group: jobs termination8 Total 66 13 More 78 7 Intermediate 65 13 Less 54 19 Page 53 GAO/HBDgO-4BBB JTPA Youth Participants Appendix M Data Supporting Figures in Text Table IX.5 Data for Figure 4.4: Outcomes for Different Types of Training Figures In percents Placed in Other positive Program activity: jobs terminations Total 66 13 Occupational training 70 7 Nonoccuoational tramma 40 2s JSA only 77 7 Table 1X.6: Data for Figure 4.5: Outcomes for Nonoccupational Training Figures in percents Program activity: Placed in Other positive Nonoccupational training iobs terminations Remedial educatron 34 3E Work exnerlence 56 14 ExemDlarv vouth 53 32 Table 1X.7: Data for Figure 4.6: Youth in Occupational Training Got EMter Jobs Percent placed in moderate or Proomm activitv: higher skilled iobs Wage/hour Occupational traininq 41 $4 53 Nonoccupational traming 20 4 09 JSA onlv 27 4 18 Page 64 GAO/HlUMO46BR JTPA Youth Participants Appendix X Major Contributors to This Briefing Report Sigurd R. Nilsen, Assistant Director, Education and Employment Issues, Human Resources (202) 523-8701 Division. William R. Stance, Assignment Manager Elizabeth C. Clemmer, Evaluator-in-Charge Washington, D.C. Page55 GAO/HIUHO4BRJTPAYoathPartidpmatr RelatedGAO Products Job Training Partnership Act: Information on Training, Placements,and Wagesof Male and Female Participants (GAOIHRDSS-152BR, Sept. 12, 1989). Job Training Partnership Act: Commentson H.R. 2039, The JTPA Amend- ments of 1989 (GAO/T-HRD-89-32, June 29, 1989). Job Training Partnership Act: Servicesand Outcomesfor Participants With Differing Needs(GAO/HRD89-52, June 9, 1989). Job Training Partnership Act: Youth Employment Amendments of 1989 May 11, 1989). (GAO/T-HRD-89-18, Summer Youth Jobs Program: CongressionalAction Has Increased Emphasis on Remedial Education (GAO/HRD-~~-~~~, Sept. 30, 1988). Job Training Partnership Act: Participants, Services,and Outcomes (GAO/T-HRD88-31, *pt. 29, 1988) Job Training Partnership Act: Summer Youth Programs Increase Emphasis on Education (GAO/HRD87-lOlBR, June 30, 1987). (205133) Page66
Job Training Partnership Act: Youth Participant Characteristics, Services, and Outcomes
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-01-24.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)