Job Corps Coverage and Local Accountability Questions
I’ve been following your coverage of the Job Corps closure with growing concern about the disconnect between journalism and advocacy. As someone who has researched the actual performance data you yourself have reported, I believe your readers deserve the complete picture beyond the emotional appeals and political theater that have dominated this story.
Throughout your coverage, you’ve referenced the Department of Labor’s transparency report showing stark national Job Corps performance statistics: 38.6% graduation rate, $80,284.65 average cost per student per year, $155,600.74 average cost per graduate, $16,695 average post-program earnings, and 14,913 serious safety incidents in 2023 including 372 cases of inappropriate sexual behavior, 1,764 acts of violence, and 2,702 reports of drug use.
You also reported that the Excelsior Springs center employs 194 staff to serve 500 students annually – a 2.5:1 staff-to-student ratio that would be extraordinary in any educational setting.
These are the facts your own reporting established. Yet instead of investigating what they mean for local taxpayers and students, your subsequent coverage has focused on amplifying emotional campaigns that dodge these uncomfortable realities.
The recent viral clip of Rep. Summer Lee questioning Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer perfectly illustrates how misinformation spreads around this issue. Lee’s performance was a masterclass in bad faith political theater:
Lee’s Demonstrable Falsehoods:
• Repeatedly called the transparency report “your DOGE report” despite clear documentation that it was created by DOL’s Employment and Training Administration
• Alleged DOGE manipulation of data that comes from established federal databases, contractor reports, and Social Security earnings records tracked for years
• Compared 2016-2017 data to 2023 data and claimed differences must represent fabrication rather than real program deterioration during a period of massive inflation
• Criticized standard federal earnings calculation methodology used across ALL workforce programs as a “false approach”
Lee’s Bad Faith Tactics:
• Demanded yes/no answers to complex policy questions, then cut off detailed responses as “not answering”
• Burned her own time with conspiracy theory speeches, then claimed the Secretary was “wasting time”
• Used emotional manipulation (“kick them back onto the streets”) when data didn’t support her position
The irony is that Lee attributes Job Corps’ cost inflation to Trump administration conspiracy when it directly resulted from COVID-era spending policies her own party championed.
Your recent coverage of the community meeting perfectly demonstrates the journalistic failure I’m highlighting. Instead of demanding the local data your readers need, you amplified talking points that actually confirm the program’s problems:
What They Actually Admitted:
• They want special accounting rules that no other federal workforce program receives
• After years of operation, they can name only 6 specific graduate success stories
• 22.7% of current students are homeless – vulnerable young people being failed by a program with a 61% dropout rate
• They’re dismissing “serious incidents” while ignoring 372 cases of inappropriate sexual behavior and 1,764 acts of violence nationally
• They’re resorting to lawsuits rather than demonstrating value through performance data
What’s Still Missing:
• Local graduation rates
• Local safety incident statistics
• Local cost per graduate
• Actual local employer hiring numbers
• Comparison to alternatives
My wife works at Aspire Senior Living, and the contrast with Job Corps exposes the program’s fundamental failure. Aspire’s CNA training program is free to participants, who earn $15 per hour while training. The only cost is under $200 for the certification test. In just two recent classes, they hired about 20 CNAs, most still working at the facility.
Meanwhile, despite Job Corps costing taxpayers $155,600 per graduate and operating in Excelsior Springs for years, they haven’t placed a single CNA at either of the town’s two nursing homes or the local hospital. This isn’t an isolated example – it’s a pattern that reveals the fundamental inefficiency of the federal model versus local alternatives.
The employment reality in Excelsior Springs makes this worse. Beyond healthcare, there are only a handful of career opportunities locally. Students training in welding have virtually no chance of finding welding jobs in town. This means Job Corps is either training students for jobs that don’t exist locally (requiring them to leave town) or failing to place graduates in jobs that do exist (like healthcare). Either way, the claimed local economic benefits seem to be illusory.
Local CNA programs achieve nearly 100% job placement at zero cost to taxpayers, with trainees earning money while learning. Job Corps graduates aren’t being hired at major local employers despite costing over $150,000 per graduate. When free local programs that pay students to learn consistently outperform a program costing taxpayers six figures per graduate, serious questions arise about resource allocation.
Your coverage noted that 24 students received high school diplomas through the district partnership. While educational attainment has value, local GED programs and adult education centers help people complete credentials at a fraction of Job Corps’ cost with the same access to trade schools and employment opportunities.
I’ve watched community advocates use classic emotional manipulation techniques: cherry-picking success stories while ignoring systematic failure rates, attacking critics personally rather than addressing data, and making vague claims about “community benefits” without providing specifics.
Recent promotional materials from supporters perfectly illustrate this problem. A letter from Profile Cabinet highlighting their “partnership” reveals how thin local job placement numbers really are. After years of operation, they showcase only 4 total Job Corps graduates working at one company – with two still completing the program and one from 2007. The advice these graduates shared was “show up to work on time” – hardly evidence of sophisticated training worth $155,600 per graduate.
Instead of amplifying emotional campaigns, journalism should be asking:
• Why highlight individual success stories when 6 out of 10 students don’t graduate?
• What specific local employers have hired how many Job Corps graduates in the past year?
• If Job Corps is so valuable, why does it cost 500 times more than local alternatives that achieve better outcomes?
• How can advocates claim this “brings jobs to the community” when Walmart and Aldi probably employ more people more efficiently?
• Why are we begging to preserve a failing federal program instead of asking whether Excelsior Springs could do better?
Detailed financial analysis shows our community could build and operate a comprehensive job training center for approximately $11.4 million annually—less than 30% of current federal spending—while employing all 194 current staff members and achieving demonstrably better outcomes.
Alternative Program Cost Breakdown:
• Staff costs (194 employees at competitive Missouri wages): $9.4 million
• Facility operations and maintenance: $800,000
• Equipment, tools, and training materials: $600,000
• Administration and oversight: $300,000
• Student support services: $300,000
• Total Annual Cost: $11.4 million
This represents a 71.5% reduction from the estimated $40.1 million in current federal spending (500 students × $80,284.65 per student nationally), while reducing per-student costs from $80,285 to $22,872.
Potential Funding Sources:
• State workforce development grants (Missouri currently receives federal workforce funds that could be redirected)
• Regional economic development partnerships between Clay County, Jackson County, and surrounding municipalities
• Public-private partnerships with major regional employers who benefit from trained workforce
• Community college consortium funding through existing Missouri community college networks
• Combination of local, state, and reduced federal funding totaling far less than current federal expenditure
Is this a perfect solution? Probably not. Would it require significant planning, coordination, and political will? Absolutely. But here’s the crucial question: Why isn’t anyone even discussing alternatives?
Your recent coverage of the fire department’s training facility (“After 30+ Years of Service, Potter Crafts a Facility to Train the Next Generation”) demonstrates that Excelsior Springs successfully builds and operates specialized training programs when there’s local control and accountability. That facility serves multiple communities, operates efficiently, and achieves its training objectives—exactly the model that could work for workforce development.
Instead of begging to preserve a failing federal program, shouldn’t local leaders be asking: “Could we do this better ourselves?” The fire department facility proves we have the capability. The Job Corps performance data proves we have the motivation. What we seem to lack is the willingness to even consider that local solutions might outperform federal bureaucracy.
The fact that this conversation isn’t happening in your coverage—or in city council meetings, or in community forums—reveals how deeply we’ve accepted the false choice between “keep the failing federal program” or “lose everything.” There are other options. The question is whether local leadership has the vision to explore them.
This isn’t about Trump or politics – it’s about a federal program that has been failing students for decades while burning through taxpayer money. The Department of Labor made this decision based on performance data, not political conspiracy theories.
Your coverage has focused heavily on emotional impact and community connections, which are valid concerns. However, journalism requires asking tough questions about taxpayer-funded programs. You’ve published concerning national data but refuse to demand the local data needed to demonstrate whether Excelsior Springs is an exception worth preserving or an example of the broader problems the Department of Labor identified.
The real story is whether Excelsior Springs will use this as an opportunity to build something better, or continue defending a system that fails most of the people it’s supposed to help.
Your readers deserve reporting that provides the complete picture – both the human impact and the measurable outcomes – free from the political misinformation and emotional manipulation that have characterized coverage of this issue.
If the proponents of keeping this program running want to convince others, maybe we should start with facts instead of feelings?
Sincerely,
Robert Middaugh, Rayville, MO
