State administration of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) Balance of State (BOS) programs was compared with administration of CETA programs by local (regular) prime sponsors in Michigan to gain insight on the potential impact of increased state control. BOS prime sponsors spent less than regular prime sponsors for administration both on a statewide basis and for sites visited. The BOS prime sponsors' programs generally had comparable results but were less cost effective based on seven performance indicators. Each Balance of State prime sponsor had the same three advisory councils that CETA required of each regular prime sponsor--a planning council, a youth council, and a private industry council. State data used to identify the demographics of the CETA eligible populations for BOS prime sponsors were incomplete and possibly inadequate for program planning purposes. Regular prime sponsors identified their CETA eligible population demographics and set their own equal opportunity benchmarks. (YLB)