Summary

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the costs, outcomes, and administrative structure of the Job Corps program, focusing on: (1) cost differences between centers run by contractors and federal Civilian Conservation Centers (CCC); (2) outcomes for students trained by national sole-source contractors; and (3) sole-source contractors' hiring of students. GAO noted that: (1) Job Corps centers generally provided basic education, vocational training, and other services to economically disadvantaged youth; (2) in 1991, training costs for CCC were higher than contractor-operated center costs; (3) youth who completed training at CCC were more likely to be placed in jobs and received higher starting wages than youth who received training at contractor-operated centers; (4) the Office of the Job Corps contracts on a sole-source basis with five construction trade unions and one building industry association to provide training to students at many centers under national contracts; (5) students who received vocational training from unions or trade associations had slightly higher placement rates than other students; (6) union-trained students had the highest starting wages; and (7) in 1991, union contractors placed 16 percent of the students in training for 90 days or more in apprenticeships.