The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) compared the former Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) Private Sector Initiative Program (PSIP) with the traditional Comprehensive Services Program (Title IIB) in terms of participants, services, and outcomes in order to provide baseline data for the supervision of the Job Training Partnership Act. To do this, GAO reviewed and analyzed U.S. Department of Labor records and those of local private industry councils (PICs) and prime sponsors at a random sample of 10 sites in one region and at other sites in different parts of the country. The study found that PICs were composed of about 60 percent representatives of businesses, especially large manufacturing firms, and that the PSIP program placed a larger proportion of participants in more successful training modes than did the older, more traditional program. The PSIP also served a less-disadvantaged clientele than the other programs, that is, older persons with more years of education, than did Title IIB. A greater proportion of PSIP participants found employment after leaving the program than did Title IIB participants, especially in unsubsidized placement. GAO's findings do not point out a superiority of one program over the other; rather, they show that different types of participants may alter the types of training needed and the outcomes. The researchers conclude that, in administering the Job Training Partnership Act, allowance should be made for in-school groups, separate from the overall group, and separate performance criteria should be set for the two groups. (YLB)