Job Corps: Comparison of Federal Program With State Youth Training
Initiatives (Letter Report, 03/28/96, GAO/HEHS-96-92).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO identified state and local
youth training programs that incorporate four basic characteristics of
the Job Corps Program: (1) serving a severely disadvantaged population;
(2) providing basic education instruction; (3) focusing on vocational
training services; and (4) providing those services in a residential
setting.
GAO found that: (1) while many state and local youth training programs
feature, to some extent, some of the Job Corps' basic characteristics,
most do not feature all four characteristics; (2) most youth training
programs provide disadvantaged youth with basic education; (3) states'
residential youth programs generally target specific populations such as
youths involved in the court system, disabled youth, or substance
abusers; (4) although state and local youth corps programs most closely
resemble the Job Corps, few are residential; and (5) the California
Conservation Corps and Seaborne Conservation Corps in Galveston, Texas,
feature all four Job Corps characteristics, but differ from Job Corps in
program operations.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: HEHS-96-92
TITLE: Job Corps: Comparison of Federal Program With State Youth
Training Initiatives
DATE: 03/28/96
SUBJECT: Employment or training programs
State programs
Vocational education
Disadvantaged persons
Compensatory education
IDENTIFIER: DOL Job Corps Program
Job Training Partnership Act Program
JTPA
California Conservation Corps
Seaborne Conservation Corps (Galveston, TX)
Community Development Block Grant
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
March 1996
JOB CORPS - COMPARISON OF FEDERAL
PROGRAM WITH STATE YOUTH TRAINING
INITIATIVES
GAO/HEHS-96-92
Job Corps and State-Run Programs
(205303)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-271070
March 28, 1996
The Honorable William F. Goodling
Chairman, Committee on Economic
and Educational Opportunities
House of Representatives
The Honorable Christopher Shays
Chairman, Human Resources and
Intergovernmental Relations
Subcommittee
Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight
House of Representatives
The nation's workforce development system consists of about 163
programs or funding streams that are funded at about $20 billion and
administered by 15 federal departments and independent agencies.\1
With the current focus on achieving a balanced budget, the Congress
is looking for ways to increase federal program efficiency while
reducing costs. Bills currently in conference propose consolidating
many employment and training programs into block grants to the states
and reducing their funding by 15 to 20 percent. These proposals
retain Job Corps--a comprehensive, residential employment and
training program for severely disadvantaged youth--as a national
program. However, provisions in the Senate bill seek to better
integrate Job Corps with state and local workforce development
initiatives. As the Congress continues to deliberate the future
structure of the federally funded workforce development system and
Job Corps' place in this system, you requested that we study several
aspects of the Job Corps program.
This letter responds to your interest in whether states have
established training programs for youth that are similar to Job
Corps. More specifically, we compared youth training programs
established by the states with Job Corps using the four program
features that, taken together, characterize the Job Corps program.
These features are (1) serving a severely disadvantaged population,
(2) providing basic education instruction, (3) focusing on vocational
training services, and (4) providing these services in a residential
setting. While the overall goal of the Job Corps program is
placement in a job or additional education and training, as agreed
with your staffs, we focused our work on identifying state programs
that had these four features, not on program outcomes. We used these
four features for comparison purposes only. We did not intend to
imply that all programs should contain these features, that the
existence of such features would necessarily ensure program
effectiveness, or that programs should be modeled after Job Corps.\2
To identify state and locally established youth training programs
similar to Job Corps, we systematically surveyed state officials
familiar with human resource programs in each of the 50 states and
the District of Columbia as well as national organizations associated
with youth employment and training programs.\3 We asked them about
any programs within their state that were similar to Job Corps--that
is, that contained Job Corps' four descriptive characteristics. We
also reviewed applicable reports and publications related to youth
programs that we identified through an extensive literature search.
In addition, we sought information on the possible existence of other
similar programs through the Internet computer information system.
From the state and local youth training programs we identified, we
noted two that most closely resembled the Job Corps program. We
visited both programs and obtained detailed information on their
organizational structures and program operations.
We did our work from October 1995 through January 1996 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
--------------------
\1 Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to
Reduce Costs, Streamline the Bureaucracy, and Improve Results
(GAO/T-HEHS-95-53, Jan. 10, 1995).
\2 See Job Corps: High Costs and Mixed Results Raise Questions About
Program's Effectiveness (GAO/HEHS-95-180, June 30, 1995) for an
assessment of the program's effectiveness.
\3 We looked for youth training programs that were established by the
states or local entities, regardless of the source of operating
funds. These programs may receive funds from one or more sources,
including federal, state, and local governments, as well as private
contributions. We excluded those programs that, although
administered and operated by state or local governments, were
federally established, such as titles IIB and IIC youth training
programs under the Job Training Partnership Act.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Considering the four characteristics that together describe the Job
Corps program, we found that most state and local programs for youth
differ from Job Corps. Most states had programs serving
disadvantaged youth that provided basic education, and some state
programs also offered vocational training. However, vocational
training was limited to preemployment preparation or introduction to
the working world and did not include training in a specific
occupation. In addition, residential programs operated by the states
generally targeted a specific segment of the disadvantaged youth
population, such as youths who have been involved in the court
system, whereas Job Corps targets youths with multiple barriers to
employment, such as school dropouts, recipients of public assistance,
and youths with limited English proficiency.
From among state and local youth programs, we found that youth corps
programs (programs that give young people work experience and
training through community service and conservation projects) had
characteristics most similar to Job Corps. Both Job Corps and youth
corps programs operate in many states, typically serving
disadvantaged youth and providing instruction to enhance basic
education skills. On the other hand, few youth corps programs are
residential or focus on vocational training in specific occupations.
Two youth corps programs--California Conservation Corps (at statewide
locations in California) and Seaborne Conservation Corps in
Galveston, Texas--contained all four features of Job Corps, but they
differed from Job Corps in the way they operated their programs. For
example, unlike Job Corps, which targets severely disadvantaged
youth, the California Conservation Corps does not specifically focus
on the disadvantaged; however, the majority of its participants are
high school dropouts. The program is, in part, residential and
provides basic education but only limited vocational training. This
training consists primarily of work experience on environmental and
public conservation projects, and training-related employment is not
the primary focus of the program. The Seaborne Conservation Corps is
a residential program targeted to high school dropouts. The 7-month
training program provides basic education, life skills instruction,
and vocational training in a military-style environment. However,
vocational training is geared only toward the maritime industry.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Job Corps was established in 1964 as an employment and training
program aimed at providing severely disadvantaged youth with a
comprehensive array of services, primarily in a residential setting.
Administered by the Department of Labor, Job Corps services are
provided at 110 centers located throughout the United States. All
but four of the states have at least one center operating within
their boundaries.\4 The program receives annual funding of
approximately $1 billion to serve about 100,000 youths.
The program enrolls youths aged 16 to 24 who are severely
disadvantaged, in need of additional education or training, and
living in a disruptive environment. Our previous report contained an
analysis of characteristics of those terminating from Job Corps in
program year\5 1993, which showed that over two-thirds of the
program's participants had multiple barriers to employment.\6 \7
Enrollment is voluntary, and training programs are open entry and
self-paced, allowing participants to enroll throughout the year and
to progress at their own pace. On average, participants spend about
8 months in the program but can stay up to 2 years.
Each of the centers provides participants with a range of services
including basic education, vocational skills training, social skills
instruction, counseling, health care (including dental), room and
board, and recreational activities. Skills training is offered in a
variety of vocational areas, such as business occupations, automotive
repair, construction trades, and health occupations. These programs
are taught by center staff, private contractors, or instructors
provided under contracts with national labor and business
organizations.
One feature that makes Job Corps different from other youth training
programs is its residential component. About 90 percent of the
approximately 63,000 youths enrolled each year live at the centers,
allowing services to be provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The
premise for boarding participants is that most come from a disruptive
environment and therefore can benefit from receiving education and
training in a different setting where a variety of support services
is available around the clock. Job Corps typically employs
residential staff to oversee dormitory living and security staff for
the safety and well-being of its participants. Furthermore, Job
Corps participants must have permission to leave the Job Corps center
grounds, and participants "earn" home leave, which must be approved
before being taken and can be denied for a number of reasons such as
failure to follow a center's rules of conduct.
The Job Corps program recently implemented a "Zero Tolerance" policy
for violence and drugs in order to ensure a safe and drug-free
environment. This policy includes a "one-strike-and-you're-out"
provision for the most serious violent or criminal offenses as well
as for drug violations.
Job Corps enrollees receive periodic allowance and incentive
payments. For example, initially a participant receives a base
allowance of about $50 per month, which increases to about $80 per
month after 6 months. In addition, participants are eligible to
receive incentive bonuses of between $25 and $80 each if they earn an
exceptional rating on their performance evaluations, held every 60
days. Participants can also earn bonuses of $250 each for graduating
from high school or receiving a general equivalency diploma,
completing vocational training, and getting a job. Participants
receive an additional $100 if the job is related to the vocational
training they received while in Job Corps. Participants obtain jobs
through a variety of mechanisms, including finding the job on their
own, being referred by their vocational instructor, and being placed
by the Job Corps center or a contracted placement agency.
Participation in Job Corps can lead to placement in a job or
enrollment in further training or education. It can also lead to
educational achievements such as attaining a high school diploma and
reading or math skill gains. However, the primary outcome for Job
Corps participants is employment; about 60 percent of those leaving
the program get jobs. Recently, the Department of Labor placed
emphasis on participants receiving a job related to the occupational
training they received by including training-related employment among
its program performance measures.
--------------------
\4 Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Wyoming do not have Job
Corps centers.
\5 A program year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the
following year. Program years are designated by the year in which
they start; thus, program year 1993 began July 1, 1993, and ended
June 30, 1994.
\6 GAO/HEHS-95-180, June 30, 1995.
\7 The barriers included dropping out of school, being deficient in
basic skills (reading or math skills below the eighth-grade level),
receiving public assistance, and having limited English proficiency.
CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE AND
LOCAL YOUTH TRAINING PROGRAMS
DIFFER FROM THOSE OF JOB CORPS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
State and local entities have established a wide array of youth
training programs using funds from various sources, including
federal, state, and local governments and private contributors.
While many of these programs share some individual characteristics
with Job Corps, we found that the extent to which the four
characteristics were present in state or locally established youth
training programs was limited. However, we did identify two programs
that had all four characteristics.
Most state officials we surveyed told us their states had programs
that provided disadvantaged youth with basic education. For example,
the Learning Center, operated by a Boston community-based antipoverty
organization, offers a specialized year-round alternative education
program for youth that includes alternative high school, general
equivalency diploma, and school-to-work programs. The program is not
residential nor does it provide vocational training.
Furthermore, some programs identified by state officials as offering
basic education also provided vocational training. The vocational
training, however, consisted of preemployment preparation or
introduction to the working world but not training in a specific
occupation. For example, the Youth Opportunities Unlimited program
in Arkansas is a high school intervention program, administered by
the state's Department of Higher Education, designed to encourage
economically disadvantaged youth to remain in school. In addition to
basic education, program participants receive classroom training in
preemployment and work maturity skills combined with the practical
application of skills provided through on-campus employment. No
job-specific skills training, however, is provided.
Residential programs operated by the states generally targeted
specific populations--such as youths who have been involved with the
court system, disabled individuals, or substance abusers. For
example, one state-funded program, the Gulf Coast Trades Center in
Texas, integrates in a residential setting vocational training, basic
education, and support services for delinquent youth. The program is
designed to prepare young people for employment in one of nine trades
including auto mechanics, construction trades, and culinary arts. In
addition, the program provides a range of other services including
counseling, health care, transitional living assistance, and job
search skills development.
YOUTH SERVICE AND CONSERVATION
CORPS PROGRAMS RESEMBLE JOB
CORPS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
We found that state and local youth corps programs most closely
resembled Job Corps. Both youth corps programs and Job Corps operate
in a large number of states, typically serve disadvantaged youth, and
provide instruction to enhance basic education skills. On the other
hand, few youth corps programs are residential. We found two that
contained all four characteristics that describe Job Corps.
Youth corps programs originated in the 1930s when President Roosevelt
founded the Civilian Conservation Corps to provide alternative
employment for young men during the Great Depression. The program
was disbanded in 1942 but was revived with the enactment of
legislation in 1970 that created the Youth Conservation Corps--a
summer work program. In 1977, the enactment of the Young Adult
Conservation Corps provided youths with year-round
conservation-related employment and educational opportunities. Both
programs were virtually eliminated through dramatic federal budget
reductions in 1981.\8 By that time, however, many states had begun to
support these programs directly.
According to the National Association of Service and Conservation
Corps, 81 year-round state and local youth corps programs operated in
32 states and the District of Columbia in 1994, providing services to
about 9,300 full-time participants. (See app. I for a listing of
the 81 programs.) Funding for these programs was about $166 million
in 1994. Approximately one-fourth of this funding was from federal
sources, such as the Job Training Partnership Act, the National and
Community Service Act, and the Community Development Block Grant.
The remaining funds came from state and local governments and private
contributions. Over half of the youth corps programs are operated by
independent, nonprofit organizations; the remainder are part of state
and local governments.
We found two youth corps programs that most closely resembled the Job
Corps program from among the youth programs we identified; that is,
they operated residential sites; served disadvantaged youth; offered
basic education; and, to an extent, provided vocational training. We
visited both programs--California Conservation Corps, which had
multiple locations in California, and Seaborne Conservation Corps in
Galveston, Texas--to obtain detailed information on how these
programs operated compared with Job Corps.
--------------------
\8 At its height during the mid-1970s, the summer Youth Conservation
Corps program was funded at $60 million. The program continues
today, but at a greatly reduced funding level ($3 million). The
year-round Young Adult Conservation Corps program had an annual
appropriation of about $230 million during its first 3 years (fiscal
years 1978 through 1980), but it was allowed to expire without
renewal in the early 1980s.
CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION
CORPS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
The California Conservation Corps was established in 1976 to assist
youth in becoming more employable by providing educational
opportunities and meaningful work aimed at protecting and enhancing
California's natural and human resources. The program's motto "hard
work, low pay, miserable conditions" provides prospective enrollees
with a preview of corps life and reflects the nature of the program.
For example, each year about 85 youths participate in the Backcountry
Trails Project and spend an entire 6-month period in remote areas of
California's parks and forests doing trail work. During this time,
participants live in spartan tent camps supplied by mule train and
helicopter, hike as much as 15 miles each day while clearing trails,
and earn minimum wages for their efforts.
In 1994, the California Conservation Corps had an annual budget of
about $50 million and served about 1,700 youths at its 44 locations
statewide, 13 of which were residential. Participants average 7.4
months in the program, and almost two-thirds of participants live in
the residential component. As shown in figure 1, the program
receives its operating funds from a variety of sources--the largest
source being the state's general fund, which contributes about 56
percent of the program's operating budget. About a third of the
operating budget comes from revenue generated by program activities,
such as reimbursements for public service conservation work and
installation of energy-efficient lighting in public buildings. In
addition, the California Conservation Corps requires youths
participating in the residential component to pay the program for a
portion of their room and board. This accounts for approximately 10
percent of the program's operating funds.
Figure 1: 1994 Funding Sources
for California Conservation
Corps
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Several differences exist between the California Conservation Corps
and Job Corps. For example, Job Corps seeks to enroll the most
severely disadvantaged youths who have multiple barriers to
employment, while the California Conservation Corps does not
specifically target disadvantaged youth--any California resident not
on probation or parole is eligible. However, over half of the
participants are high school dropouts. Job Corps participants
receive an allowance of $50 to $80 per month and receive free room
and board and medical and dental services, whereas California
Conservation Corps participants earn a weekly wage but must pay $225
per month for their room and board and another $50 per month if they
elect the optional health insurance.
Whereas Job Corps provides training in specific vocational areas and
emphasizes job placement in related occupations, the California
Conservation Corps seeks to improve the employability of its
participants primarily by providing work experience through
environmental and public conservation projects. Some of the skills
involved in these projects may be transferable to related fields in
the labor market when the participants leave the program, but
employment in occupations related to the training received is not a
primary focus of the California Conservation Corps.
California Conservation Corps participants have been involved in such
projects as rebuilding trails at Yosemite National Park, fighting
wildfires in Southern California, installing solar panels at a state
training facility in Galt, landscaping San Diego's Wild Animal Park,
and cleaning up an oil spill near Oxnard. According to program
officials, many former participants become employed as rangers with
the National Park Service and National Forest Service. Others who
were enrolled in the energy conservation program have found jobs in
the private sector performing similar work.
We visited two of the residential sites in California--Placer Service
District in Auburn and Delta Service District in Stockton. The
Placer site is located about 1 hour northeast of Sacramento, in a
rural setting. The site is self-contained, having been built in 1952
as a conservation camp for convicts. The facilities consist of two
dormitories (housing about 100 youths), an administration building,
auto shop, wood shop, energy lab, cafeteria, and recreation hall.
Participants are not restricted to facility grounds and can maintain
their own vehicles. About half of all Placer participants are in the
energy conservation program, while most of the other members
participate in resource conservation activities. A few opportunities
also exist for specialist training as cook, auto mechanic, and office
clerk.
The Delta site is on the grounds of the Stockton Development Center,
a former state mental hospital. The site is located in an urban area
and has open access. The main building consists of an administrative
area, a large classroom, and several smaller classrooms. The
building contains adjacent wings for dormitories housing about 75
participants. Except for administrative and operations staff, no
other professional or medical staff are on site. Most of the
training opportunities at Delta are in the environmental conservation
area, such as fire fighting, flood control, and erosion control.
SEABORNE CONSERVATION CORPS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
The Seaborne Conservation Corps is a relatively new program, having
been established by Texas A&M University at Galveston in September
1994 through a partnership among the university, the Department of
the Navy, and the Texas National Guard, with support from the
Corporation for National and Community Service's AmeriCorps. About
two-thirds of its $2 million budget is funded by the Department of
Defense (Civil-Military Cooperation) and the remainder is funded by
AmeriCorps. Because of funding uncertainties from both the
Department of Defense and AmeriCorps, program officials hope to turn
to the state of Texas for funding beyond its current class, which is
scheduled to graduate in May 1996.
Seaborne is a residential training program targeted to high school
dropouts. Its 7-month training program provides basic education,
life skills instruction, and vocational skills training. However,
differences exist between Seaborne and Job Corps. For example,
Seaborne's training program has fixed start and end dates, whereas
Job Corps uses an open-entry/open-exit format. In addition, Seaborne
participants train in a military-style environment, including
undergoing a 4-week boot camp, observing military standards and
discipline, and typically training and working 16 hours a day, 6 days
a week. Participants are required to perform 900 hours of community
service, which program officials believe promotes a strong work ethic
while instilling a sense of community pride. All participants live
aboard the T/S Texas Clipper, the Texas A&M University training ship
supplied by the Maritime Administration for training students in the
Texas State Maritime Training Program.
While no income requirement exists, participants must be high school
dropouts. Furthermore, the program will not accept delinquent youths
or youths who test positive for drugs. The program requires
participants to pass a military-type physical examination and prefers
to enroll those who can read at or above the grade 7 level, although
exceptions may be made. All interested youths are also interviewed
by program staff in an attempt to assess their motivation. Seaborne
maintains a drug-free policy similar to Job Corps' Zero Tolerance
policy. Seaborne tests each participant for drugs at enrollment and
then randomly tests a sample of participants (10 to 12 percent) each
month. In addition, Seaborne tests any participant for cause or
suspicion and may command a 100-percent drug test at any time. For
example, all participants in the current class have been tested for
drugs following each home leave. If a participant tests positive at
any time, he or she is dismissed immediately from the program.
Seaborne's vocational training component is tied directly to the
local economy by focusing on the maritime industry. Participants
receive maritime training on board the Clipper and perform an
internship at the University's Center for Marine Training and Safety.
According to the program's Director, the maritime industry has a
critical need for entry-level workers. He stated that he could
easily find jobs for 300 youths every year. However, not all
participants want to work in the maritime industry. In fact, of the
76 graduates from Seaborne's first two classes, only 21 (28 percent)
became employed in the maritime industry. As shown in figure 2,
about 42 percent of Seaborne's first two classes either dropped out
or were dismissed before completing the program. The attrition rate
has been reduced with each class--from 48 percent in the first class
to about 15 percent in the third (current) class. The program
Director attributed the 48-percent dropout rate in the first class to
the staff's not fully explaining to prospective participants the
program's difficult lifestyle, especially the military structure and
discipline, the 16-hour days, and the rigorous physical requirements.
Figure 2: Program Outcomes for
Enrollees in Seaborne's First
Two Classes in 1994 and 1995
(See figure in printed
edition.)
A distinguishing feature of the Seaborne program is the
interrelationship of a number of organizations. Seaborne is operated
by a local university specializing in ocean sciences. The university
provides the ship that participants live and train on, and all
program staff are university employees. Program staff have developed
links with local maritime companies, who have indicated they are
willing to hire all Seaborne graduates interested in maritime
careers. The program has also cultivated close relationships with
area school districts, which are a major source of prospective
recruits. In addition, a private foundation and local bank have
cooperated in developing a guaranteed loan program for Seaborne
graduates. This low-interest loan program not only provides
participants with money to help them transition to the workplace but
also gives them a credit history. Seaborne also works closely with
the Texas National Guard, using its facilities and medical staff.
Program staff use local Navy, Marine, and National Guard recruiters
for outreach and placement. Youths who interview with military
recruiters but are not eligible for the military are often referred
to Seaborne.
SUMMARY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
State or locally established youth training programs are offered in
most states. While many had characteristics similar to Job Corps,
state and local youth corps programs most closely resembled the Job
Corps program. We found two such programs--the California
Conservation Corps and the Seaborne Conservation Corps in Galveston,
Texas--that contained all four features that, taken together,
characterize Job Corps. That is, they served disadvantaged youth,
provided basic education, offered vocational training, and provided
services in a residential setting. However, even these two differed
from Job Corps in the way they operated their programs. For example,
the California program does not specifically target the
disadvantaged, and Seaborne's vocational training is geared toward
only one industry.
AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
In comments on a draft of this report, the Department of Labor
generally agreed with the information contained in the report. We
have incorporated Labor's comments where appropriate. Labor pointed
out that a fifth feature of Job Corps that should not be overlooked
is its emphasis on job placement following program separation. We
recognize Job Corps' overall goal of placement in a job or additional
education and training and have so noted this in our report. Labor
also stated that, unlike most other programs, Job Corps focuses on
severely disadvantaged youth. Labor believed that this distinction
could be made clearer. We made minor adjustments to our draft to
clarify this distinction. Labor's comments are printed in appendix
II.
We also provided pertinent sections from our draft report to
officials from the California Conservation Corps and Seaborne
Conservation Corps for their review. They agreed with our
characterization of their programs and provided minor technical
clarifications. We incorporated their comments where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor; the
Director, Office of Management and Budget; relevant congressional
committees; and other interested parties.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report,
please call me at (202) 512-7014 or Sigurd Nilsen at (202) 512-7003.
Major contributors to this report include Thomas Medvetz, Wayne
Sylvia, and Marquita Sylvia.
Carlotta C. Joyner
Director, Education and
Employment Issues
STATE AND LOCAL YEAR-ROUND YOUTH
CORPS PROGRAMS
=========================================================== Appendix I
FY 1994
budget\a
Residentia Nonresidenti (thousan
State Name l al ds)
---------------------- ----------------------------- ---------- ------------ --------
Alaska Southeast Alaska Guidance 0 40 $1,390
Association
Arizona Arizona Conservation Corps 0 60 1,300
Border Volunteer Corps 0 110 2,484
Arkansas Delta Service Corps \b \b \b
California California Conservation Corps 1,063 683 49,000
Conservation Corps of Long 0 82 1,625
Beach
East Bay Conservation Corps 0 132 5,749
Fresno Local Conservation 0 50 764
Corps
Los Angeles Conservation 0 180 6,441
Corps
Marin Conservation Corps 0 70 1,800
Orange County Conservation 0 50 477
Corps
Sacramento Local Conservation 0 130 1,841
Corps
San Francisco Conservation 0 145 4,312
Corps
San Francisco Urban Service 0 24 370
Project
San Jose Conservation Corps 0 95 2,455
Tulare County Conservation 0 25 341
Corps
Urban Corps of San Diego 0 125 1,455
Colorado Colorado Youth Corps 0 18 200
Denver Urban Conservation 0 25 113
Corps
District of Columbia D.C. Service Corps 0 100 1,222
Florida Eckerd Conservation & Service 40 50 1,576
Corps\c
Greater Miami Service Corps 0 200 2,300
Orlando Urban Service Corps 0 60 850
Urban Conservation Corps 0 120 378
(Palm Beach)
Georgia Georgia Peach Corps 0 120 2,811
Greater Atlanta Community 0 10 185
Corps
Iowa Iowa Conservation Corps 0 50 2,290
Kansas Kickapoo Youth Conservation 0 10 150
Corps
Topeka Youth Corps 0 24 396
Louisiana New Orleans Youth Action 0 70 1,389
Corps
Maine Maine Conservation Corps 0 21 450
Portland Youth for Public 0 15 351
Safety
Maryland Baltimore Civic Works 0 48 838
Community Year 0 26 429
Maryland Conservation Corps 10 50 697
Montgomery County 0 40 526
Conservation Corps
Massachusetts Berkshire Conservation Team 0 11 195
City C.O.R.E. 0 30 355
City Pride, Brockton's Urban 0 22 400
Youth Service Corps
City Year, Inc.\d 0 363 9,012\e
Michigan Flint Youth Service Corps 0 33 294
Grand Rapids Service Corps 0 33 516
Michigan Civilian 0 75 1,200
Conservation Corps
Minnesota Minnesota Conservation Corps 0 110 2,619
Mississippi Greater Jackson Youth Service 0 38 895
Corps
Missouri Kansas City Area Youth Corps 0 50 460
Missouri Youth Service and 0 116 500
Conservation Corps
Montana Montana Conservation Corps 0 24 1,273
Nevada Nevada Business Services 0 180 700
Youth Corps
New Jersey New Jersey Youth Corps 0 1,400 5,671
New Mexico Southern Rocky Mountain 0 8 47
Service Corps
New York Albany Service Corps 0 58 651
Bronx Youth Conservation 0 30 670
Corps
Cayuga County Conservation 0 8 113
Corps
City Volunteer Corps, Inc. 0 483 6,760
West Seneca Service Action 0 20 180
Corps
Year-Round Syracuse 0 32 750
Youth Energy Corps 0 32 900
Youth Resource Development 0 101 877
Corporation
North Carolina Durham Service Corps 0 35 599
Winston-Salem Service Corps 0 20 275
Ohio Ohio Civilian Conservation 80 120 5,691
Corps
Oregon Lane-Metro Youth Corps 0 109 685
Northwest Service Academy 30 60 2,675
Northwest Youth Corps 76 10 1,680
Oregon Youth Conservation 0 150 800
Corps
Pennsylvania Lehigh Valley Youth Service 0 27 323
Corps
Pennsylvania Conservation 0 400 7,278
Corps
Step, Inc. Youth Corps 0 24 281
Texas Dallas Youth Services Corps 0 30 883
Seaborne Conservation Corps 100 0 2,000
Serve Houston Youth Corps 0 60 1,250
Utah Youth Force: The Salt Lake 0 40 200
County Service and
Conservation Corps
Virginia Opportunity Knocks 0 116 1,141
Washington Seattle Conservation Corps 0 55 2,400
Washington Conservation Corps 0 70 1,434
Washington Service Corps 0 280 3,215
West Virginia West Virginia Citizens' 0 64 1,200
Conservation Corps
Wisconsin Milwaukee Community Service 0 85 1,648
Corps
Wisconsin Conservation Corps 0 361 5,607
Wisconsin Service Corps 0 35 322
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Budgets include funds for part-time and summer participants, where
appropriate.
\b Information not available.
\c Program has an additional site in North Carolina.
\d Program has additional sites in California, Illinois, Ohio, Rhode
Island, and South Carolina.
\e Budget amounts are for Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and South
Carolina. The other programs began operation after fiscal year 1994.
(See figure in printed edition.)APPENDIX II
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR
=========================================================== Appendix I
(See figure in printed edition.)
*** End of document. ***