ment level of the entering youths, even the most viable program can hardly be expected to have dramatic results if the youths cannot be induced to remain at the centers long enough to benefit from the training. The effectiveness of the program in meeting its objectives of assisting young persons who need and can benefit from an intensive training program is highly questionable for the large number of youths who remained at the centers for only short periods of time.

4. Weaknesses in the policies and procedures under which the program has been administered have detracted significantly from program success. According to Job Corps estimates, direct costs per enrollee man-year were $6,600 for fiscal year 1968. Considering both the direct and the indirect costs for those centers in operation as of June 30, 1968, enrollee man-year costs for fiscal year 1968 were $8,300. Although costs of this magnitude are required to operate the program and it has been in existence for over 4 years, there existed a number of major problems of administration including

(a) A need for improving the recruiting and screening procedures. A significant portion of Corps members have not met the qualifications generally considered necessary or desirable for participation in the program and the alternatives of enrolling applicants in other less costly, and possibly more suitable, training programs apparently were not always considered;

(b) A need for improving the administration of the vocational and academic training programs and for establishing minimum graduation criteria which would provide assurance that graduates possess the minimum requisites for successful employment;

(c) A need for strengthening the counseling system at each of the centers to more fully assist Corps members in making the social, educational, and vocational adjustments necessary to become self-supporting members of society and to provide a means by which Corps members could be encouraged to remain at the centers for a sufficient period of time to acquire the skills necessary to obtain and hold jobs; and

(d) A need for the centers to improve their records and reporting systems in order to obtain accurate and meaningful information about individual Corps members and program operations as a tool for evaluating the effectiveness of the centers' various activities.

5. We have considerable doubt as to whether conservation centers can be expected to provide the intensive training contemplated in the act, at least without substantially upgrading the vocational training program which would appear to be quite costly. Conservation centers generally provided vocational training through the performance of conservation work projects, with little or no related vocational classroom instruction.

We recognize the value of conservation work in itself. We also recognize that most of the centers have some work projects which permit exposure to some occupational skills and that, generally, work projects are a good vehicle for instilling proper work habits in Corps members. However, the size and complexity of the work projects coming to our attention at the centers we reviewed generally were not of a nature to serve as a basis for intensive vocational training. It does not appear to us that the use of work projects as the primary vehicle for providing vocational training would permit the centers to

establish and operate an effective training program directed toward skill development in occupational areas above the helper or laborer categories.

Job Corps and the administering departments of conservation centers, Agriculture and Interior, recognized that weaknesses and deficiencies had existed in training programs at the centers and, in a joint effort, considered means for improvement. However, our perusal of the requirements prescribed in May 1968 by Job Corps, in conjunction with the departments, for improvements in the training program indicated that, in order for Corps members to accomplish the minimum requirements for program completion in the various occupational areas, Corps members would need an opportunity to take part in intensive classroom and work-experience programs directed specifically toward development of the knowledge and technical skills needed beyond the helper and laborer categories.

To establish intensive vocational training programs at each of the 82 centers in a number of vocational areas for the 100 to 250 corpsmen enrolled at each of the centers would appear to be quite costly. Moreover, it is questionable whether a sufficient number of qualified instructors could be obtained to provide such training at the generally remote and isolated conservation center locations.

In summary, it is probable that a valid need can be documented for residential training of the type envisioned in Job Corps for a certain number of youths whose needs, because of environmental characteristics or because of geographic location, cannot be well served through other programs operating in or near their home communities. We have doubt, however, that, in light of our findings and the cost of this type of training, the resources now being applied to the Job Corps. program can be fully justified. Our doubt in this regard is especially applicable to the conservation center component of the program, particularly in consideration of the significant changes which appear necessary in this component to upgrade its effectiveness in achieving training program objectives.

RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with the foregoing conclusions, we recommend that the Congress consider whether the Job Corps program, particularly with respect to conservation centers, is sufficiently achieving the purposes for which it was created to justify its retention at present levels.

In our supplementary reports on the program examined at individual Job Corps locations, we are making specific recommendations for improvement in the administration of the program.

RECRUITING AND SCREENING ACTIVITIES

Recruiting and screening activities are carried out for Job Corps by the U.S. Employment Service (USES), Women in Community Service, Inc., community action agencies, and other private recruiters and screeners on the basis of quotas established by Job Corps.

We examined recruiting and screening activities at six of the seven OEO regional offices and at 17 local agencies. From inception through December 31, 1968, about 223,000 youths had been placed in Job

26-849 0-69 -5

Corps centers, of which about 32,000 were still enrolled. For fiscal year 1968, Job Corps reported that recruiting and screening costs amounted to about $8 million.

Although Job Corps has carried out a widespread advertising campaign and has estimated that about 900,000 youths are eligible for the program, we found that recruiting and screening organizations generally were unable to meet quotas during fiscal year 1968. Job Corps established a recruitment quota of about 117,000 youths for the fiscal year which, after allowing for an anticipated no-show rate of 30 percent, was to insure that about 82,000 youths would enter the program. The recruiting organizations were able to recruit and screen about 90,000 youths of which about 73,000 entered the program and the remaining 17,000 were classified as no-shows.

In late January 1968, Job Corps announced the closure of four men's urban centers and 11 conservation centers. Job Corps informed us that this action disturbed its recruiting mechanism and was the primary reason for the recruiting agencies' inability to meet quotas. Although we recognize that the closing of the centers adversely affected recruiting operations, we noted that, during the first 7 months of fiscal year 1968, Job Corps records showed that the recruiting agencies had been able to recruit only about 68 percent of established quotas for men. Quotas for women had been met during this period.

The recruiting agencies provided us with a number of reasons for their inability to meet quotas. These reasons included (1) the existence of available jobs in certain areas, (2) disinterest of eligible youths in the program, and (3) discouraging reports on the Job Corps program made to potential enrollees by returning, terminated corpsmen. It appeared that the lack of an active and direct recruiting activity by the organizations also contributed to the inability to meet quotas. Generally, we found that the organizations waited for applicants to appear rather than to actively solicit youths in the hard-core poverty areas. Also, of 638 terminated corpsmen interviewed in August 1968, less than 15 percent stated that they became aware of the program directly from the recruiting organizations.

The inability to meet established quotas may have resulted in eligibility requirements being waived for a considerable number of enrollees. It appears that screeners have requested waivers on a significant number of cases, because of the difficulty in recruiting applicants. Although responsibility for approving waivers of eligibility requirements rests with officials of the OEO regional offices, we noted that they relied heavily on the recommendations of the screeners in these cases.

Waivers of important eligibility criteria were granted for about 33 percent of the 1,000 enrollees included in our test. A subsequent study by Job Corps revealed that, of the 73,000 Job Corps enrollees during fiscal year 1968, information on eligibility criteria was available on about 46,000 enrollees. The remaining 27,000 enrollee applications were not properly completed at the screening levels so that the eligibility status could be determined. Waivers had been granted for about 10,000, or 22 percent, of the 46,000 enrollees. Among the more important criteria frequently waived were

1. The minimum period that an applicant had to be out of school, a requirement designed to discourage youths from dropping out of school to join the program;

2. The requirement that an applicant meet certain behavior standards; and

3. The requirement that an applicant not be a high school graduate.

In addition, we noted that in many cases there was not adequate verification by the screening agencies of data supplied by applicants and their parents, a factor which raises additional questions as to the extent to which youths may not have met the eligibility criteria for acceptance in the program.

We made limited inquiries pertaining to eligibility requirements through discussions with school officials and screening personnel and through examination of selected screening error reports. We found instances where, contrary to the eligibility requirements, applicants were accepted who (1) were in school or were expected to return to school the following term, (2) had a history of serious criminal or antisocial behaviors, and (3) had not evidenced at least one adverse environmental condition such as limited job opportunities. The extent to which screening errors may have occurred is not determinable because Job Corps found that the centers had not fully complied with requirements to report such errors.

We noted instances where screening organizations apparently accepted youths without first determining whether Job Corps was the most appropriate available training program to meet the applicants' needs. This condition existed primarily because (1) emphasis was on meeting quotas, (2) screeners were not familiar with other available programs, and (3) screening personnel did not question the wisdom of the applicants' choice to participate in the program. Job Corps agreed that such instances occur but informed us that it relies primarily on USES affiliated State employment service offices which screen about 70 percent of Job Corps applicants to make proper selections of applicants.

We also found that Job Corps did not conduct periodic reviews designed to permit an overall evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the activities of recruiting and screening organizations. We were advised by Job Corps that the OEO-Job Corps-Labor-USES agreement places the responsibility of monitoring the performance of the affiliated State agencies on the USES. However, USES advised us that they did not have the funds or manpower capability to perform evaluation reviews at each employment service office and that all such reviews conducted were done on an exception basis. We believe that the absence of periodic reviews, at least to some extent, may have contributed to the conditions noted above.

CENTER OPERATIONS

We made detailed reviews of the operations at nine centers-two men's urban centers, five men's conservation centers, and two women's centers. During fiscal year 1968, direct operating costs for these centers amounted to about $32 million and about 55,000 man-months of training were provided to about 13,000 youths who were in attendance at the centers for varying periods of time.

Originally, young men were assigned to the conservation centers to increase their basic academic skills to a point where they could undertake vocational training at the urban centers. Subsequently, a

determination was made to offer sufficient training at the conservation centers for employment. The urban centers offered the more advanced training for young men in Job Corps programs. Young men participating at these centers were selected primarily because of their higher achievement on tests given by recruiting and screening agencies. Separate urban centers were used for training young women.

Late in fiscal year 1968, Job Corps, in consultation with the Departments of the Interior and of Agriculture who operated conservation centers, made a decision to materially strengthen the training program available at these centers. Also, in November 1968, achievement test results were discontinued as a determinant factor for the initial assignment of an enrollee to the two types of centers, primarily to assign youths to centers close to their homes.

Retention of Corps members

A factor critical to the success of the Job Corps program is the need to retain Corps members for a sufficient period of time for them to attain the attributes necessary for responsible, productive citizenship. Job Corps, on the basis of its experience, believes that a Corps member must remain in the program for at least 6 months to develop such attributes and, during its existence, has taken a number of actions designed to encourage Corps members to remain in the program. Although we found that Job Corps had achieved only limited success in assisting youths to become more responsible, productive citizens, we did find that the longer a Corps member stayed in the program the better his post Job Corps experience was.

Of 73,500 Corps members who left Job Corps in fiscal year 1968, 26,300 were classified as graduates. Of the remaining 47,200 youths, 18,200 had remained over 90 days and 29,000 less than 90 days at the centers. Overall, the length of stay of Corps members averaged 6 months. We found that, at the centers we reviewed, the majority of Corps members left the program in less than 6 months.

The reasons most readily identified by the centers we reviewed and most frequently expressed by the terminees that we interviewed regarding the failure of Corps members to stay at the centers until completing a program were (1) dissatisfaction with the center or Job Corps as a whole, (2) homesickness, (3) the inability to obtain desired vocational training, and (4) the fear of bodily harm.

Conservation centers. The reported overall average length of stay of those corpsmen who terminated from the conservation center program during fiscal year 1968 was 6.3 months, and at the centers we reviewed the average ranged from 3.9 to 6.1 months. We found that the percentage of youths terminating in less than 6 months at the five centers ranged from 52 to 74 percent. It should be noted that a corpsman's time at a conservation center is generally equally divided between academic classes and vocational training. Consequently, with the prevailing average retention period, the time available for Corps member training in each field would, in effect, be limited to an average of 2 or 3 months.

Our review showed that, because of variations and weaknesses in the development and use of graduating criteria at conservation centers, classification of a Corps member as a graduate would not in itself provide reasonable assurance that the Corps member had satisfactorily attained the academic, vocational, and behavioral levels required for entrance into employment in his selected vocational field.