[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 174 (Friday, September 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46984-47009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-95-22339]
[[Page 46983]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Employment and Training Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
Office of Vocational and Adult Education; School-to-Work Opportunities;
Local Partnership Grants; Application Procedures; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 /
Notices
[[Page 46984]]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Vocational and Adult Education; School-to-Work
Opportunities; Local Partnership Grants; Application Procedures
AGENCIES: Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor;
Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of availability of funds, solicitation for grant
application (SGA), an administrative cost cap, a definition of
administrative costs, and final selection criteria for School-to-Work
Opportunities Local Partnership Grants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the fiscal year (FY) competition for
Local Partnership Grants authorized under Title III of the School-to-
Work Opportunities Act of 1994 (the Act). This notice contains all of
the necessary information and forms needed to apply for grant funding
in FY 1995. The Departments also establish final selection criteria to
be used in evaluating applications submitted under the Local
Partnership Grants competition in FY 1995 and in succeeding years. The
Departments also establish a definition for the term ``administrative
costs,'' as well as a 10 percent cap on administrative costs incurred
by local partnerships receiving grants under Title III of the Act.
DATES: Applications for grant awards will be accepted commencing
September 8, 1995. The closing date for receipt of applications is
November 7, 1995, at 2 p.m. (Eastern time) at the following address.
Telefacsimile (FAX) applications will NOT be accepted.
ADDRESSES: Applications must be mailed to: U.S. Department of
Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA #278C,
Washington, D.C. 20202-4725.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Kniesler, National School-to-
Work Office. Telephone: (202) 401-6222. (This is not a toll-free
number). Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-
877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through
Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Section A. Background
The Departments of Labor and Education are reserving funds
appropriated for FY 1995 under Pub. L. 103-329 (the Act) for a
competition for Local Partnership Grants authorized under Title III of
the Act. In accordance with the authority provided in section 5 of the
Act, the Departments have determined that the administrative provisions
contained in the Education Department General Administrative
Regulations (EDGAR) at 34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 82, 85 and 86,
will apply to grants awarded to local partnerships under this
competition.
This notice contains a definition of the term ``administrative
costs,'' a 10 percent cap on administrative costs incurred by local
partnerships receiving grants under Title III, and the selection
criteria that will be used in evaluating applications submitted in
response to this year's competition, and all of the other necessary
information and forms needed to apply for grant funding.
Section B. Purpose
Under this competition, the Departments will award grants to local
partnerships that have built a sound planning and development base for
their school-to-work programs, to begin implementation of School-to-
Work Opportunities initiatives that will become part of statewide
School-to-Work Opportunities systems. These local initiatives will
offer young Americans access to programs designed to prepare them for
first jobs in high-skill, high-wage careers, and to increase their
opportunities for further education and training.
Section C. Application Process
1. Eligible Applicants
A local entity that meets the definition of ``local partnership''
in section 4(11) of the Act, is eligible to apply for a Local
Partnership Grant. However, local partnerships that are located in the
eight States that were awarded School-to-Work Opportunities State
Implementation Grants in 1994 are not eligible to apply for a Local
Partnership Grant under this competition. These eight States are:
Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Kentucky, Wisconsin,
Michigan, and Oregon. In addition, it should be noted that local
partnerships located in States that are slated to receive School-to-
Work Opportunities State Implementation Grants in 1995 are eligible to
apply for grants under this competition.
As defined in the Act, an eligible partnership must include
employers, representatives of local educational agencies and local
postsecondary educational institutions (including representatives of
area vocational education schools, where applicable), local educators,
representatives of labor organizations or nonmanagerial employee
representatives, and students. Other entities appropriate to effective
implementation of a local School-to-Work Opportunities initiative
should also be included in the partnership.
Under section 302(a) of the Act a local partnership is eligible to
receive only one (1) Local Partnership Grant.
2. State Comments
The local partnership must submit its application to the State for
review and comment before submitting the application to the
Departments, in accordance with section 303(a) of the Act. The
application should be submitted to the State's School-to-Work Contact.
A list of State School-to-Work Contacts is included in Appendix D of
this notice. The Departments expect that the State School-to-Work
Contact will provide all members of the State School-to-Work
Partnership listed in section 213(b)(4)(A)-(K) of the Act, an
opportunity to review and comment on the local partnership's
application.
Of particular importance to the Departments are each State's
comments on the consistency of the local partnership's planned
activities with the State's plan for a comprehensive statewide School-
to-Work Opportunities system and the relationship of any proposed
activities with other local plans, especially if the grant applicant is
not specifically identified as a local partnership within the State
system.
In accordance with section 305 of the Act, if a State has an
approved State School-to-Work Opportunities plan, the State must
confirm that the plan submitted by the local partnership is in
accordance with the State plan. The application from the local
partnership must contain this confirmation.
Section 303(b)(1) of the Act requires each State to review and
comment on a local partnership's application within 30 days from the
date on which the State receives the application from the local
partnership. Therefore, even though applicants have 60 days to apply
for a Local Partnership Grant under this notice, they must provide
their application to their State in time for the State to have at least
30 days before the due date to review and comment on their application.
Furthermore, under section 303(c)(2) of the Act, the State's
comments must be included in the local partnership's application.
However, if the State does not provide review and comment within the
30-day time period described above, the local partnership may submit
the
[[Page 46985]]
application without State comment. In such a case, the local
partnership should provide proof that the State received a copy of the
local partnership's application at least 30 days prior to the
application due date.
3. Period of Performance
The period of performance for Local Partnership Grants is twelve
months from the date of award by the Departments.
4. Option to Extend
Local Partnership Grants may be extended up to four additional
years, but not beyond the second year of a School-to-Work Opportunities
State Implementation Grant for the State in which the partnership is
located. Extensions will be based upon availability of funds and the
progress of the local partnership towards its objectives as approved in
its application and will be subject to the annual approval of the
Secretaries of Labor and Education (the Secretaries). It is likely that
the amount of Federal funds, if any, that are awarded to local
partnerships under this notice in subsequent years will decrease.
5. Available Funds
Approximately $15 million is available for this competition.
6. Estimated Range of Awards
The amount of an award under this competition will depend upon the
scope, quality, and comprehensiveness of the proposed initiative and
the relative size of the community to be served by the local
partnership.
The Departments expect that first-year grant amounts will be about
$200,000 for areas with populations under 250,000; $200,000 to $300,000
for areas with populations of 250,000 to 499,999; $300,000 to $500,000
for areas with populations of 500,000 to 749,999; $500,000 to $700,000
for areas with populations of 750,000 to 999,999; $700,000 to
$1,000,000 for areas with populations of 1,000,000 to 1,499,999; and
upwards of $1,500,000 for areas with populations of 1,500,000 or more.
These ranges are provided to assist applicants in developing plans. The
exact amounts awarded may exceed or be less than the amounts reflected
in these ranges.
7. Estimated Number of Awards
The Departments expect to award 25-35 grants under this
competition.
Note: The Departments are not bound by any estimates in this
notice.
8. Reporting Requirements/Deliverables
(a) Reporting Requirements
The local partnership will be required, at a minimum, to submit--
Quarterly Financial Reports (SF 269-A);
Quarterly Narrative Progress Reports;
An Annual Continuation Application package, if
appropriate, including--
A revised SF-524 and renewed Assurances and
Certifications;
A narrative report describing progress toward stated
goals, and identifying goals and objectives for the coming year;
Annual financial reports (ED Form 524B, and SF 269);
Budget Information for Upcoming Years;
An Annual Performance Report providing data on performance
measures; and
A close-out report at the end of the grant.
(b) Deliverables
The local partnership will be required to--
Provide information on best practices and innovative
school- and work-based curricula suitable for dissemination to States
and other stakeholders;
Participate in two grantee meetings per year sponsored by
the National School-to-Work Office;
Act as a host to outside visitors who are interested in
developing and implementing School-to-Work Opportunities initiatives
and to other visitors interested in the replication, adaptation or
impact of successful program elements; and
Participate as needed in evaluation and special data
collection activities.
9. Application Transmittal Instructions
An application for an award must be mailed or hand-delivered by the
closing date.
(A) Applications Delivered by Mail
An application sent by mail must be addressed to the U.S.
Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention CFDA #
278C, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C 20202-4725.
An application must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the
following:
A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service Postmark.
A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by
the U.S. Postal Service.
A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a
commercial carrier.
Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the U.S.
Secretary of Education.
If an application is sent through the U.S. Postal Service, the
Secretary does not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
A private metered postmark.
A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal
Service.
An applicant should note that the U.S. Postal Service does not
uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, an
applicant should check with its local post office. An applicant is
encouraged to use registered or at least first class mail. Each late
applicant will be notified that its application will not be considered.
(B) Applications Delivered by Hand
An application that is hand-delivered must be taken to the U.S.
Department of Education, Application Control Center, Room 3633,
Regional Office Building 3, 7th and D Streets SW., Washington, DC.
The Application Control Center will accept hand-delivered
applications between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (Washington, DC time)
daily, except Saturdays, Sundays and Federal Holidays.
Individuals delivering applications must use the D Street entrance.
Proper identification is necessary in order to enter the building.
In order for an application sent through a courier service to be
considered timely, the courier service must be in receipt of the
application on or before the closing date.
Section D. Organization and Content of Applications
Applicants are encouraged to submit an original and four copies of
their application. The Departments suggest that the application be
divided into five distinct parts: budget and certifications, abstract,
State comments, program narrative and appendices. To ensure a
comprehensive and expedient review, the Departments strongly suggest
that applicants submit an application formatted as seen below:
Table of Contents
I. Budget and Certifications
Part I should contain the Standard Form SF 424, ``Application for
Federal Assistance,'' and SF 524, ``Budget.'' All copies of the SF 424
must have original signatures of the designated fiscal agent. In
addition, the budget should include--on a separate page or pages--a
detailed cost breakout of each line item on SF 524. All assurances and
certifications included in this notice
[[Page 46986]]
should also be included in Part I of the application.
II. Abstract
Part II should consist of a one-page abstract summarizing the
essential components and key features of the local partnership's plan.
III. State Comments
Part III should contain the State's comments on the application.
Details on this section can be found under State Comments heading of
this notice.
IV. Program Narrative
Part IV should contain the application narrative that demonstrates
the applicant's plan and capabilities in accordance with the selection
criteria contained in section F of this notice. In order to assist
applicants in the preparation of their applications and to facilitate
expeditious evaluation by the panel, applicants should describe their
proposed plan in light of each of the selection criteria. No cost data
or reference to price should be included in this part of the
application. The Departments strongly request that applicants limit the
program narrative section to no more than 40 one-sided, double-spaced
pages.
V. Appendices
All applicable appendices, including letters of support, resumes
and organizational charts, should be included in this section. The
Departments recommend that all appendix entries cross-reference the
applicable sections in the program narrative.
Note: Applicants are advised that the peer review panels
evaluate each application solely on the basis of the selection
criteria contained in this notice, and the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act. Appendices may be used to provide supporting
information. However, in scoring applications, reviewers are
required to take into account only information that is presented in
the application narrative, which must address the selection
criteria, and requirements of the Act. Letters of support are
welcome, but applicants should be aware that support letters
contained in the application will strengthen the application only if
they contain commitments that pertain to the selection criteria.
Section E. Safeguards
The Departments will apply certain safeguards, as required under
section 601 of the Act, to School-to-Work Opportunities programs funded
under this notice. The application must include a brief assurance that
the following safeguards will be implemented and maintained throughout
all program activities:
(a) No student shall displace any currently employed worker
(including a partial displacement, such as a reduction in the hours of
non-overtime work, wages, or employment benefits).
(b) No School-to-Work Opportunities program shall impair existing
contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements, and no
program funded under this notice shall be undertaken without the
written concurrence of the labor organization and employer concerned.
(c) No student shall be employed or fill a job--
(1) When any other individual is on temporary layoff, with the
clear possibility of recall, from the same or any substantially
equivalent job with the participating employer; or
(2) When the employer has terminated the employment of any regular
employee or otherwise reduced its workforce with the intention of
filling the vacancy so created with the student.
(d) Students shall be provided with adequate and safe equipment and
safe and healthful workplaces in conformity with all health and safety
requirements of Federal, State, and local law.
(e) Nothing in the Act shall be construed so as to modify or affect
any Federal or State law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of
race, religion, color, ethnicity, national origin, gender, age, or
disability.
(f) Funds awarded under the Act shall not be expended for wages of
students or workplace mentors.
(g) The grantee shall implement and maintain such other safeguards
as the Secretaries may deem appropriate in order to ensure that School-
to-Work Opportunities participants are afforded adequate supervision by
skilled adult workers, or to otherwise further the purposes of the Act.
Section F. Waivers
Under Title V of the Act the Secretaries may waive certain Federal
requirements that impede the ability of a State or local partnership to
carry out the purposes of the Act. Only local partnerships in States
with approved School-to-Work Opportunities plans may apply for waivers.
A local partnership that seeks a waiver should contact its State
School-to-Work Contact to determine what documentation is required and
to whom it should be sent.
In May, 1995, the National School-to-Work Opportunities Office
issued a document entitled ``School-to-Work Opportunities Waiver and
Plan Approval Process Questions and Answers.'' This document was sent
to every Governor and State School-to-Work Contact. The document
contains answers to many of the questions that localities may have when
preparing their waiver requests. Local Partnerships interested in
applying for waivers should contact the National School-to-Work
Opportunities Office or their State School-to-Work Contact for a copy
of the waivers document.
Section G. Bidders' Conferences
Bidders' Conferences for interested School-to-Work Opportunities
Local Partnership representatives are scheduled from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00
p.m., on the dates and locations listed below:
September 15, 1995, Bartle Hall, 13th and Broadway, Room
2210, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
September 18, 1995, Jackson Federal Building, 915 2nd
Avenue, North and South Auditorium, 4th Floor, Seattle, Washington
98174.
Participants at the conferences will receive a detailed description
of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and the selection criteria and
how they will be applied, and will have the opportunity to ask
questions of Federal School-to-Work officials.
All partnerships must preregister by faxing the names and addresses
of up to three members of the local partnership planning to attend, the
name of the local partnership, and a phone number to: Kevin Shelton,
Training and Technical Assistance Corporation, 2409 18th, NW.,
Washington, DC; FAX #: (202) 408-8282.
Questions regarding the solicitation may be submitted in advance.
If you are unable to attend the Bidders' Conference, but would like the
conference materials and a conference transcript, submit your request
via fax to the fax number listed above. All information must be
submitted no later than September 13, 1995. Conferees will be sent a
confirmation along with hotel accommodation information once their
registration has been received.
Local Partnership Grant Competition
Analysis of Comments and Changes
On May 25, 1995, the Departments of Labor and Education published a
notice containing proposed selection criteria, a 10 percent cap on
administrative costs, and a definition of the term ``administrative
costs'' for this competition and competitions in succeeding years in
the Federal Register (60 FR 27812-27814). In response to the invitation
to comment, 34 parties submitted comments. An analysis of the comments
received in response to the publication of that notice and of the
changes made to the selection criteria, administrative cost cap, and
definition
[[Page 46987]]
since publication of the notice of proposed selection criteria and
proposed definition, is published as an appendix to this notice.
School-to-Work Local Partnership Grants-- Administrative Cost Cap
The Departments are applying the 10 percent cap on administrative
costs contained in section 215(b)(6) of the Act to local partnerships
receiving grants directly under this competition. Section 215(b)(6) of
the Act applies the 10 percent administrative cap to subgrants received
by local partnerships from a State. The Departments have concluded that
applying the 10 percent cap to local partnerships under Title III of
the Act is consistent with the Act's intent and its broader limitations
on administrative costs. Further, this limitation is consistent with
section 305 of Title III, which requires conformity between School-to-
Work Opportunities plans of local partnerships and State School-to-Work
Opportunities plans.
Definition
All definitions in the Act apply to local School-to-Work
Opportunities systems funded under this and future Local Partnership
Grant competitions. Since the Act does not contain a definition of the
term ``administrative costs'' as used in section 217 of the Act, the
Departments will apply the following definition to this and future
competitions for Local Partnership Grants.
The term ``administrative costs'' means the activities of a local
partnership that are necessary for the proper and efficient performance
of its duties under the Local Partnership Grant pursuant to the School-
to-Work Opportunities Act and that are not directly related to the
provision of services to participants or otherwise allocable to the
program's allowable activities listed in section 215(b)(4) and section
215(c) of the Act. Administrative costs may be either personnel or non-
personnel costs, and may be either direct and indirect. Costs of
administration include those costs that are related to this grant in
such categories as--
A. Costs of salaries, wages, and related costs of the grantee's
staff engaged in--
Overall system management, system coordination, and
general administrative functions;
Preparing program plans, budgets, and schedules, as well
as applicable amendments;
Monitoring of local initiatives, pilot projects,
subrecipients, and related systems and processes;
Procurement activities, including the award of specific
subgrants, contracts, and purchase orders;
Developing systems and procedures, including management
information systems, for ensuring compliance with the requirements
under the Act;
Preparing reports and other documents related to the Act;
and
Coordinating the resolution of audit findings;
B. Costs for goods and services required for administration of the
School-to-Work Opportunities system;
C. Costs of system-wide management functions; and
D. Travel costs incurred for official business in carrying out
grants management or administrative activities.
Selection Criteria
Under the School-to-Work Opportunities Local Partnership Grant
competition, the Departments will use the following selection criteria
in evaluating applications and will utilize a peer review process in
which review teams, including peers, will evaluate applications using
the selection criteria and the associated point values. The Departments
will base final funding decisions on the ranking of applications as a
result of the peer review, and such other factors as replicability,
sustainability, innovation, geographic balance, and diversity of system
approaches.
Selection Criterion 1: Comprehensive Local School-to-Work Opportunities
System (40 Points)
Considerations: In applying this criterion, reviewers will
consider--
A. 20 Points. The extent to which the partnership has designed a
comprehensive local School-to-Work Opportunities plan that--
Includes effective strategies for integrating school-based
and work-based learning, integrating academic and vocational education,
and establishing linkages between secondary and postsecondary
education;
Is likely to produce systemic change that will have
substantial impact on the preparation of all students for a first job
in a high-skill, high-wage career and in increasing their opportunities
for further learning;
Ensures all students will have a full range of options,
including options for higher education, additional training and
employment in high-skill, high-wage jobs;
Ensures coordination and integration with existing school-
to-work programs, and with related programs financed from State and
private sources, with funds available from Federal education and
training programs (such as the Job Training Partnership Act and the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act); and
where applicable, communities designated as Empowerment Zones or
Enhanced Enterprise Communities (EZ/EEC);
Serves a geographical area that reflects the needs of the
local labor market, and is able to adjust to regional structures that
the State School-to-Work Opportunities plan may identify; and
Targets occupational clusters that represent growing
industries in the partnership's geographic area; and, where applicable,
demonstrates that the clusters are included among the occupational
clusters being targeted by the State School-to-Work Opportunities
system.
B. 20 Points. The extent to which the partnership's plan
demonstrates its capability to achieve the statutory requirements and
to effectively put in place the system components in Title I of the
School-to-Work Opportunities Act, including--
A work-based learning component that includes the
statutory ``mandatory activities'' and that contributes to the
transformation of workplaces into active learning components of the
education system through an array of learning experiences such as
mentoring, job-shadowing, unpaid work experiences, school-sponsored
enterprises, and paid work experiences;
A school-based learning component that provides students
with high-level academic and technical skills consistent with academic
standards that the State establishes for all students, including, where
applicable, standards established under the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act;
A connecting activities component to provide a functional
link between students' school and work activities, and between
workplace partners, educators, community organizations and other
appropriate entities;
Effective processes for assessing skills and knowledge
required in career majors, and issuing portable skill certificates that
are benchmarked to high-quality standards such as those States will
establish under the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, and for
periodically assessing and collecting information on student outcomes,
as well as a realistic strategy and timetable for implementing the
process in concert with the State.
A flexible School-to-Work Opportunities system that allows
students participating in the local
[[Page 46988]]
system to develop new career goals over time, and to change career
majors; and
Effective strategies for: providing staff development for
teachers, worksite mentors and other key personnel; developing model
curricula and innovative instructional methodologies; expanding career
and academic counseling in elementary and secondary schools; and
utilizing innovative technology-based instructional techniques.
Selection Criterion 2: Quality and Effectiveness of the Local
Partnership (20 Points)
Considerations: In applying this criterion, reviewers will refer to
section 4(11) of the Act and consider--
Whether the partnership's plan demonstrates an effective
and convincing strategy for continuing the commitment of required
partners and other interested parties in the local School-to-Work
Opportunities system. As defined by the Act, partners must include
employers, representatives of local educational agencies and local
postsecondary educational institutions (including representatives of
area vocational education schools, where applicable), local educators
(such as teachers, counselors, or administrators), representatives of
labor organizations or nonmanagerial employee representatives, and
students, and may include other relevant stakeholders such as those
listed in section 4(11)(B) of the Act, including employer
organizations, community-based organizations, national trade
associations working at the local levels, industrial extension centers,
rehabilitation agencies and organizations, registered apprenticeship
agencies, local vocational education entities, proprietary institutions
of higher education, local government agencies, parent organizations,
teacher organizations, vocational student organizations, private
industry councils under JTPA, federally recognized Indian tribes,
Indian organizations, and Alaska Native villages, and Native Hawaiian
entities.
Whether the partnership's plan demonstrates an effective
and convincing strategy for continuing the commitment of workplace
partners and other interested parties in the local School-to-Work
Opportunities system;
The effectiveness of the partnership's plan to include
private sector representatives as joint partners with educators in both
the design and the implementation of the local School-to-Work
Opportunities system;
The extent to which the local partnership has developed
strategies to provide a range of opportunities for workplace partners
to participate in the design and implementation of the local School-to-
Work Opportunities system, including membership on councils and
partnerships; assistance in setting standards, designing curricula, and
determining outcomes; providing worksite experiences for teachers;
helping to recruit other employers; and providing worksite learning
activities for students such as mentoring, job shadowing, unpaid work
experiences, and paid work experiences;
The extent to which the roles and responsibilities of the
key parties and any other relevant stakeholders, are clearly defined
and are likely to produce the desired changes in the way students are
prepared for the future.
The extent to which the partnership demonstrates the
capacity to build a quality local School-to-Work Opportunities system;
Whether the partnership has included methods for
sustaining and expanding the partnership, as the program expands in
scope and size.
Selection Criterion 3: Participation of All Students (15 Points)
Considerations: In applying this criterion, reviewers will refer to
the definition of the term ``all students'' in section 4(2) of the Act,
and consider--
The extent to which the partnership will implement
effective strategies and systems: to provide all students with equal
access to the full range of program components specified in sections
102 through 104 of the Act and related activities such as recruitment,
enrollment and placement activities; and to ensure that all students
have meaningful opportunities to participate in School-to-Work
Opportunities programs;
Whether the partnership has identified potential barriers
to the participation of any students, and the degree to which it
proposes effective ways of overcoming these barriers;
The degree to which the partnership has developed
realistic goals and methods for assisting young women to participate in
School-to-Work Opportunities programs leading to employment in high-
performance, high-paying jobs, including non-traditional jobs;
The partnership's methods for ensuring safe and healthy
work environments for students, including strategies for encouraging
school to provide students with general awareness training in
occupational safety and health as part of the school-based learning
component, and for encouraging workplace partners to provide risk-
specific training as part of the work-based learning component, as well
the extent to which the partnership has developed realistic goals to
ensure environments free from racial and sexual harassment;
The extent to which the partnership's plan provides for
the participation of a significant number or percentage of students in
School-to-Work Opportunities activities listed under Title I of the
Act.
Selection Criterion 4: Collaboration With State (15 Points)
Considerations: In applying this criterion, reviewers will
consider--
The extent to which the local partnership has effectively
consulted with its State School-to-Work Opportunities Partnership, and
has established realistic methods for ensuring consistency of its local
strategies with the statewide School-to-Work Opportunities system being
developed by that State Partnership;
Whether the local partnership has developed a sound
strategy for integrating its plan, as necessary, with the State plan
for a statewide School-to-Work Opportunities system;
The extent to which the local partnership has developed
effective processes through which it is able to assist and collaborate
with the State in establishing the statewide School-to-Work system, and
is able to provide feedback to the State on their system-building
process.
Whether the plan includes a feasible workplan that
describes the steps that will be taken in order to make the local
system part of the State School-to-Work Opportunities System, including
a timeline that includes major planned objectives during the grant
period.
Selection Criterion 5: Management Plan (10 Points)
Considerations: In applying this criterion, reviewers will
consider--
The feasibility and effectiveness of the partnership's
strategy for using other resources, including private sector resources,
to maintain the system when Federal resources under the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act are no longer available.
The extent to which the partnership's management plan
anticipates barriers to implementation and proposes effective methods
for addressing barriers as they arise.
Whether the plan includes feasible measurable goals for
the School-to-Work Opportunities system, based on performance outcomes
established under section 402 of the Act, and an effective method for
collecting
[[Page 46989]]
information relevant to the local partnership's progress in meeting its
goals.
Whether the plan includes a regularly scheduled process
for improving or redesigning the School-to-Work Opportunities system
based on performance outcomes established under section 402 of the Act.
The extent to which the resources requested will be used
to develop information, products and ideas that will assist other
States and local partnerships as they design and implement local
systems.
The extent to which the partnership will limit equipment
and other purchases in order to maximize the amounts spent on delivery
of services to students.
Dated: September 1, 1995.
Tim Barnicle,
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, Department of Labor.
Patricia McNeil,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education,
Department of Education.
Appendix--Analysis of Comments and Changes--Administrative Costs
10 Percent Cap on Administrative Costs
Comment: Eleven commenters suggested that the proposed 10
percent cap on administrative costs was too low. Several of the
commenters felt that the cap should be set at a higher level, such
as 15 percent or 20 percent. Other commenters felt that the cap
should be set on a flexible scale that would fluctuate according to
the size of the grant award. Many commenters felt that the 10
percent cap on administrative costs would ultimately undermine local
efforts to build and sustain a strong school-to-work implementation
effort, and that it would sacrifice the quality and effectiveness of
the local partnerships. Finally, one commenter felt that School-to-
Work Opportunities systems in rural areas would have an especially
difficult time being able to stay within the 10 percent cap on
administrative costs.
Discussion: The Departments have concluded that applying the 10
percent cap to Title III grants awarded to local partnerships is
consistent with the Act's broader limitations on administrative
costs, with the 10 percent cap imposed on local partnerships
receiving School-to-Work Opportunities subgrants from States, and
with section 305 of Title III, which requires conformity between
School-to-Work Opportunities plans of local partnerships and State
School-to-Work Opportunities plans.
Changes: None.
Definition of Administrative Costs
Comment: Twelve commenters suggested that changes be made to the
definition of the term ``administrative costs.'' Some of these
commenters felt that evaluation and monitoring are functions so
central to the local partnerships' ability to implement systemic
change that they should be excluded from the definition of
administrative costs. One of these commenters also felt that
language should be added that would specifically outline allowable
activities. Another commenter felt that the definition of the term
``administrative costs'' under EDGAR should be used.
Discussion: The Departments chose to create a new definition of
administrative costs rather than use a generic definition such as
the one contained in EDGAR in order to address the unique nature of
the Act. This definition was established as part of the 1995 School-
to-Work Opportunities State Implementation grant process. It should
be noted that activities that are directly related to the provision
of services to participants or otherwise allocable to the program's
allowable activities under the grant are not defined as
administrative costs. The Departments believe that since the
definition specifically states that activities under section
215(b)(4) and 215 of the Act are not administrative
costs, there is no need to mention specific activities such as the
provision of technical assistance or developing model curriculum.
The Departments believe that the independent evaluation function is
especially critical because of the need for an ongoing process of
measuring system effectiveness and therefore have not included it in
the definition of the term ``administrative costs.'' The Departments
believe, however, that monitoring and establishing compliance
systems are activities appropriately charged to the administrative
cost category.
Changes: None.
Equipment Cost as an Administrative Cost
Comment: Three commenters asked for clarification as to whether
equipment cost is an administrative cost, especially in relation to
the last bullet point under selection criterion 5, which asks
reviewers to consider the extent to which a local partnership will
limit equipment purchases in order to maximize the amounts spent on
direct delivery of students.
Discussion: The Departments believe that equipment purchased for
the purpose of administering the School-to-Work Opportunities system
is an administrative cost, and therefore is subject to the 10
percent cap. However, equipment purchased for classroom
instructional use would not be subject to the 10 percent cap.
Changes: None.
Suggested Changes to the Structure of the Notice
Need to Include Sections of the Act in the Notice
Comment: One commenter believed that the selection criteria
should more exactly reiterate key components contained in the Act in
Title I, sections 101-104 (``General Program Requirements'' and
basic program components).
Discussion: While the Departments concur with the commenter on
the importance of these provisions, they do not believe it is
necessary to restate in the notice most of the legislative language
emphasized by the commenter. The notice advises local partnerships
that applications must meet all the requirements of the Act,
reiterates that all definitions in the Act apply to systems funded
under the Local Partnership Grant competitions, and emphasizes,
under Criterion 1, the need for local partnership plans to
demonstrate consistency with all statutory requirements and with all
system components in Title I of the Act. Therefore, the Departments
strongly encourage applicants to refer to the Act as well as the
criteria in developing School-to-Work Opportunities plans that
reflect the full intent of the law. The Departments wish to assure
the commenter that panelists reviewing the applications are selected
for their understanding of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, are
required to participate in a carefully designed orientation, and
will be directed to score applications based on the criteria, in
conjunction with the requirements of the Act.
Changes: None.
Distribution of Points
Comment: One commenter questioned the distribution of points in
this section, and believed that Criterion 1 B, under Comprehensive
Local School-to-Work Opportunities System, should receive more
weight than 20 out of 100 points. This commenter also indicated that
Criterion 3, ``Participation of All Students,'' should receive more
than 15 points. Another commenter recommended making Criterion 3 a
``threshold criterion''. This commenter felt that unless this
component was adequately addressed, no local partnership should be
considered for funding.
Discussion: In response to this comment, the Departments gave
careful consideration to the distribution of points among the
selection criteria, and have concluded that the distribution
provided for in the notice results in the most appropriate balance
among the criteria. The Departments are committed to assisting
partnerships develop and implement school-to-work systems that
provide opportunities to all students, but they do not agree that
Criterion 3 should be replaced with a threshold criterion or an
eligibility requirement, or that either of these would be consistent
with the Act. Criterion 3 requires that a partnership describe its
strategies for effectively ensuring opportunities for all students
to participate in the school-to-work system, and to identify ways of
overcoming barriers to the participation of any students. This
criterion now states that the partnership's strategies must address
equal access to the full range of components for all students. The
Departments again wish to emphasize that to receive the maximum
points for Criterion 3, applicants must not neglect the needs of any
students, and must convincingly describe how the School-to-Work
Opportunities system will provide the same options and produce the
same results for all participating students, while recognizing that
groups of students have different needs and, therefore, that
specific strategies may be required for the various groups listed in
the definition of ``all students.'' Applications that fail to
address the critical needs of any category of
[[Page 46990]]
student and fail to develop effective strategies in response to
identified student barriers will not be as competitive as those that
have comprehensive and effective strategies for all students. To be
competitive, partnerships that have not fully implemented all
components of the strategies devised for all students should at
least have established a timetable for putting these components in
place within a reasonable period of time.
Changes: None.
Restructuring Criteria
Comments: Several commenters recommended adding or restating key
concerns under several criteria, changing the order of the bullets
under a given criterion, or moving bullets from under one criterion
heading to another. One commenter suggested moving the first bullet
under Selection Criterion 3 concerning strategies for ensuring that
all students have effective and meaningful opportunities to
participate in the local School-to-Work Opportunities system to
Selection Criterion 1(B). Another commenter suggested reordering the
bullets under Selection Criterion 2 in order to enhance the
continuity of the section. This commenter also felt that Selection
Criterion 1(A) should be made a part of Selection Criterion (2)
since geographic coverage is more closely related to the quality and
effectiveness of the local partnership.
Discussion: The Departments recognize that there are certain key
elements that have a direct bearing on several aspects of local
School-to-Work Opportunities systems. The notice has been carefully
developed to weave these issues throughout the notice while still
capturing the major points most germane to each specific criterion.
However, the Departments do not believe it is always necessary to
restate these issues as bullet points under multiple criteria. As
discussed in response to another comment, applicants are encouraged
to refer to the Act as well as the notice in order to develop
School-to-Work Opportunities plans that fully implement the law. In
response to suggested changes in sequence and placement, the order
of importance, or that a greater percentage of the maximum points
for that criterion is to be assigned to any particular bullet, all
bullets under each selection criterion will be duly considered by
the reviewers. The Departments again wish to emphasize that all
applications are subject to a thorough review. Panelists are
selected for their expertise in school-to-work, receive a thorough
orientation, and are grouped in carefully balanced teams
representing a range specializations and interests, to ensure that
decisions reflect the full intent of the Act.
Changes: None.
Selection Criterion 1: Comprehensive Local School-to-Work Opportunities
System (A)
Coordination and Integration With Existing School-to-Work Programs
Comment: Four commenters felt that language should be added that
would ensure coordination with Federal systems change grants
authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). One commenter felt that specific reference should not be
made to the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) and the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act.
Discussion: Achieving comprehensive reform will require local
partnerships to coordinate and integrate a great number and variety
of initiatives having training and education related goals. The
Departments agree that the lessons learned from initiatives and
programs that are related to School-to-Work should be incorporated
in the local partnership's plan. The fourth bullet under Selection
Criterion 1(A) is intended to encourage local partnerships to review
the many Federal, State and local programs and initiatives and to
develop plans for creating mutually supportive strategies.
Changes: None.
Difficulty of Rural Areas in Targeting High-wage, High-skill Jobs
Comment: One commenter was concerned that the emphasis placed
throughout the notice on high-wage, high-skill jobs would favor
urban partnerships over rural partnerships, which may be unable to
offer paid work experiences or match metropolitan pay schedules.
This commenter pointed out that rural communities have limited
access to such paid jobs due to geographic isolation, slow economic
growth, and comparatively lower wages for most employees. The
commenter suggested that points be awarded for plans developed by
rural School-to-Work consortia to allow employees to live in their
home community while commuting to high-wage, high-skill jobs in
neighboring communities.
Discussion: The Departments are committed to a fair and
equitable review of all applications, and recognize that, in order
to be successful, a local School-to-Work system must respond to the
needs and conditions of the community for which it has been
developed. While the Departments recognize the unique challenges
faced by rural areas, they do not feel that developing School-to-
Work systems tailored to rural locations is incompatible with the
emphasis on preparing students for high-skill, high wage jobs as
given in the Act. They encourage local partnerships in these areas
to design School-to-Work systems that enable young people to explore
as broad a range of career options as possible, and develop the
skills to compete in a global economy, wherever they ultimately
reside and work. The Departments are also interested in applications
that link innovative education strategies with local workforce
development and economic development strategies. The Departments
wish to clarify that this emphasis on high-wage, high-skill jobs
should not place rural partnerships at a disadvantage, since
reviewers rank each application against the criteria, not against
other applications. While the notice will not reserve specific
points for rural strategies such as the one suggested by the
commenter, reviewers will consider the quality of the partnership's
plan in light of what is feasible for that community, as described
in the application. Therefore, the extent to which an application
describes what is possible and appropriate for the partnership, as
well as the partnership's strategies to provide students with
opportunities to explore a range of occupational clusters and
acquire skills relevant to high-wage, high-skill jobs, will
determine the number of points awarded. Rural partnerships that
present this information thoroughly and convincingly will score as
highly against the criteria as partnerships with a greater range of
opportunity due to higher concentrations of business and industry.
Changes: None.
Selection Criterion 1: Comprehensive Local School-to-Work Opportunities
System (B)
Need to More Broadly Define Entities to be Linked in the Connecting
Activities Component
Comments: Two commenters felt that this criterion described the
connecting activities component too narrowly. The commenters pointed
out that, while building links with employers (as highlighted in the
third bullet) is necessary to successful school-to-work transitions,
this group is not the only one that must be linked in a successful
system. The commenters urged that this bullet be broadened to
emphasize the need for links with all workplace partners, as well as
community organizations.
Discussion: The Departments agree with the commenters that a
successful connecting activities component maintains a continuous
feedback loop between the school and work communities, and that work
communities include labor organizations and non-managerial employees
as well as employers. The Departments also agree that the connecting
activities component should assist students with access to a range
of support services, provided through entities like community-based
organizations and one-stop career centers.
Changes: The third bullet of Selection Criterion 1(B) has been
changed to read: ``A connecting activities component to provide a
functional link between students' school and work activities, and
between workplace partners, educators, community organizations and
other appropriate entities.''
Providing All Students with a Full Range of Options:
Comment: Four commenters suggested that Selection Criteria 1 A
and 3 be changed to reflect the language in section 101(5) of the
Act regarding the partnership's plan for providing all students with
equal access to the full range of program components (including the
school-based and work-based learning components) and related
activities, such as recruitment, enrollment, and placement
activities.
Discussion: The Departments agree with the commenter on the
importance of emphasizing the need for strategies to provide all
students equal access to the full range of program components,
rather than offering any student an abbreviated menu of options.
Changes: The third bullet under Selection Criterion 1(A) has
been changed to recognize the importance of all students having
equal access to a full range of options. An additional reference has
been added to bullet 6 under Selection Criterion 3.
[[Page 46991]]
Consistency with Other Initiatives
Comment: One commenter noted references in the notice to the
Goals 2000 and Empowerment Zones/Enhanced Enterprise Communities
(EZ/EEC) initiatives, and expressed concern that applications from
local partnerships in States not currently participating in the
Goals 2000 initiative might be less competitive than applications
from partnerships in States that are.
Discussion: References in the notice to these and other
initiatives are intended to stress the need for coordination of
related efforts in the areas of education reform, workforce
development, and economic development. A major purpose of the
School-to-Work initiative is to unify categorical programs into
coherent and comprehensive systems, and to avoid duplication of
effort across various agencies and funding streams. The EZ/EEC
initiative, for which the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and the Department of Agriculture are the lead agencies,
is an economic development initiative targeting urban and rural
areas, with a major focus on rebuilding inner cities. Partnerships
are funded against an approved strategic plan, and all proposals
include an education component. Similarly, the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act provides a broad vehicle for education reform supportive
of the objectives of School-to-Work. Where these initiatives
coincide at the local level, it is important that they be
coordinated. However, participation in activities under both Goals
2000 and School-to-Work is strictly voluntary, and a State's
participation in Goals 2000 is in no way a condition for award of a
School-to-Work Local Partnership Grant. By including references to
Goals 2000, the Departments intend to emphasize the need for local
systems to incorporate high-quality academic and skill standards
consistent with any standards developed by the State as part of
education reform or restructuring, and for local partnership
activities to coincide with the State or region's overall vision for
improving education and employment opportunities.
Changes: None.
Selection Criterion 2: Quality and Effectiveness of the Local
Partnership
Key Stakeholders
Comment: Several commenters felt this section focused too
narrowly on the role of employers, and did not adequately convey the
range of required partners and other interested parties that are
given in the Act. Commenters were particularly concerned about the
comparative lack of emphasis on union representatives and frontline
workers, teachers, and community-based organizations as members of
local partnerships. The commenters felt that these groups should be
explicitly identified in this criterion, since their involvement is
as vital to system development and implementation as that of
employers. Various suggestions were made as to how the bullets under
this criterion could be amended to be more inclusive of key
stakeholders. One commenter noted that students, also listed as
required members of local partnerships in the Act, are unlikely to
be involved as partners in decision-making, and recommended specific
language emphasizing their participation.
Discussion: This criterion immediately refers reviewers to the
definitions of local partners given in the Act. However, the
Departments agree that it would be useful to list in Selection
Criterion 2 all the parties referred to in sections 4(11)(A) and
(B). In this way, the criterion will not appear to omit any of the
entities that have important contributions to make to a
comprehensive local School-to-Work system. It is vitally important
to the success of local School-to-Work systems that key local
groups, including those highlighted by the commenters, be involved
at every stage of system development and implementation. The
Departments wish to emphasize that only those applications that
involve all key parties substantively and continuously, effectively
incorporating their perspectives and strengths in the system plan,
will be competitive.
Changes: The first bullet of Criterion 2 now lists the required
members of local partnerships as given in section 4(11)(A) of the
Act, including representatives of organized labor or nonmanagerial
employees, teachers, and students. This first bullet also lists the
examples of interested parties noted in section 4(11)(B), including
community-based organizations. Subsequent bullets refer to the lists
given in the first bullet, and where appropriate, the term
``workplace partners'' has been substituted for ``employers''.
Similar clarifications were included in the final notice for the
State Implementation Grants competition.
Role of Private Industry Councils
Comment: Three commenters suggested that it should not be
necessary to form a new local partnership when the Private Industry
Councils are able to perform the function. They commented that not
including the Private Industry Councils would be detrimental to the
School-to-Work Opportunities system.
Discussion: The Departments agree that the Private Industry
Councils, as established under section 102 of the Job Training
Partnership Act, are key partners in the School-to-Work
Opportunities initiative. The Departments believe that Private
Industry Councils can play many important roles in local School-to-
Work systems, and encourage their participation in local
partnerships. However, in order to be eligible for a grant under
this notice, a local partnership must include all of the entities
included in section 4(11)(A) of the Act, and may include other
parties such as those listed in section 4(11)(B). The Departments
believe that it is up to each local community to determine which
parties are the most appropriate for their local partnership, and
that the Act is structured in a way that allows them such
flexibility. The Departments believe that the criteria as written
adequately allow for the inclusion of the Private Industry Councils
in local School-to-Work Opportunities system-building activities.
Changes: None.
Selection Criterion 3: Participation of All Students
Define ``All Students''
Comment: Several commenters suggested that a definition of the
term ``all students'' be added to the notice or that the specific
student categories be defined.
Discussion: Although all definitions and requirements of the Act
apply, the Departments agree that it would be helpful to remind
applicants that the Act's definition of the term ``all students''
applies to this competition.
Changes: A reference to the definition of ``all students'' in
Section 4(2) of the Act has been included in Criterion 3. Inclusion
of Safety Skills in the Work-based and School-based Components.
Comment: One commenter recommended that specific language be
added to the first and second bullets in this section, requiring the
acquisition of skills relating to safety as elements of the school-
based and work-based learning components.
Discussion: The Departments strongly agree that issues of health
and safety are important to any School-to-Work system. In the fourth
bullet under Criterion 3, ``Participation of All Students,''
reviewers will consider the partnership's methods for ensuring safe
and healthy work environments for students. Many activities may be a
part of strategies for ensuring that students are provided with such
environments. The Departments believe that work-based and school-
based modules that inform students of safety issues, as well as
their rights and responsibilities at the workplace, are among the
methods that would appropriately address this criterion. For
example, the work-based component could include risk-specific
training for students participating in learning experiences at the
work site. Outcomes of this training could include a student's being
able to demonstrate an understanding of: specific tasks or
operations associated with the learning experience that pose risks;
proper use of tools, devices, and equipment provided to control
identified risks; procedures for responding to any potential hazards
the youth identifies; and procedures for reporting illness and
injury. The school-based learning component can provide students
with general awareness training in occupational safety and health.
Outcomes of this training might include a student's being able to
describe the general nature and types of work-related health
problems, describe the risk factors associated with the most common
jobs held by young workers, describe the concept of hazard control
strategies and give examples, list the jobs prohibited to young
workers by applicable local, State, and Federal laws, and describe
the procedures and policies regarding the reporting of work-related
diseases and injuries.
Changes: While the Departments do not believe it is appropriate
for them to define the strategies that all partnerships must use to
ensure safe and healthy work environments, the fourth bullet has
been modified to clarify that these strategies should include both
the school-based and work-based components, making the Local
Partnership notice consistent with the State Implementation Grant
notice published in the Federal Register of May 18.
[[Page 46992]]
Environments Free From Harassment
Comment: One commenter suggested that partnerships be required
to describe how they will ensure that student environments are free
from racial and sexual harassment.
Discussion: The Departments agree with the commenter on the
importance of provisions to ensure that School-to-Work activities
take place in atmospheres conducive to learning, and free from
racial and sexual harassment. In response to public comment, similar
changes were made to the State Implementation Grants notice
published in the Federal Register on May 18, 1995. Requiring
reviewers to consider whether applications present strategies for
harassment-free environments will emphasize the importance of this
issue and ensure consistency between the ``Participation of All
Students'' sections of the Local Partnership and State notices.
Changes: Under the fourth bullet of Criterion 3, reviewers will
consider the extent to which a partnership has developed realistic
goals to ensure environments free from racial and sexual harassment,
as well as to guarantee safe and healthy work environments.
Selection Criterion 4: Collaboration With State
State Ability to Sustain Local Partnership
Comment: One commenter suggested that a section be added to this
criterion related to the ability of the State School-to-Work
Opportunities system to sustain a local partnership once Federal
funding to that local partnership has ended. The commenter suggested
that a long term sustainability plan that would include the
integration of a variety of Federal, State, and local funding
streams should be included in this criterion.
Discussion: The Departments expect a State School-to-Work
Opportunities System to sustain local partnerships funded under
section 302(a) of the Act once Federal funding to that local
partnership has ended. However, the Departments are not in a
position to prescribe at what level the partnership shall be
sustained.
Changes: None.
Selection Criterion 5 Management Plan:
Evaluation
Comments: Three commenters suggested that the bullets under
Selection Criterion 1 and 4, regarding performance outcomes, should
be more specific. One commenter suggested that language be added
stating that performance outcomes should include measures of the
extent to which special populations are included. Two commenters
felt that it was important to require that both individual and
aggregate data be collected.
Discussion: The Departments believe that States and local
partnerships should have the flexibility to design evaluations
appropriate to their own needs and goals and encourage local
partnerships to work closely with their State when developing
performance outcomes and evaluation plans. Section 402 of the Act
describes the overall framework and emphasis of the performance
measurement and evaluation systems for the School-to-Work
Opportunities initiative.
Changes: None.
Limit on Equipment Purchases
Comment: One commenter felt that the bullet point under
Criterion 4 regarding the limitation of equipment purchases would
keep rural partnerships from purchasing distance learning equipment
which can often play a critical role in the implementation School-
to-Work Opportunities systems in rural areas.
Discussion: The Departments agree that distance learning
technology can play a key role in the implementation of local
School-to-Work systems in rural areas. Bullet six under Criterion
1(B) states that the Departments are looking for effective
strategies for utilizing innovative technology-based instructional
techniques such as distance learning. However, applicants are
reminded that their overall goal should be to maximize direct
services to students. Applicants proposing equipment purchases such
as distance learning systems should be sure that such purchases
clearly link back to the overall purpose and design of the proposed
local School-to-Work Opportunities system. Applicants should also be
aware that such purchases would be seen by the Departments as one-
time expenditures and would not be refunded in any future years of
funding.
Changes: None.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
[[Page 46993]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.007
[[Page 46994]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.008
[[Page 46995]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.009
[[Page 46996]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.010
[[Page 46997]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.011
[[Page 46998]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.012
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C
[[Page 46999]]
Estimated Public Reporting Burden
Under terms of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended, and
the regulations implementing that Act, the Department of Education
invites comment on the public reporting burden in this collection of
information. Public reporting burden for this collection of information
is estimated to average 90 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. You may send comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department
of Education, Information Management and Compliance Division,
Washington, D.C. 20202-4651; and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 1830-0530, Washington, D.C. 20503.
(Information collection approved under OMB control number 1830-
0530, Expiration date: 6/30/98.)
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
[[Page 47000]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.013
[[Page 47001]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.014
[[Page 47002]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.015
[[Page 47003]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.016
[[Page 47004]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.017
[[Page 47005]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.018
[[Page 47006]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.019
[[Page 47007]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.020
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C
[[Page 47008]]
School-to-Work State Contacts
Alabama
Stephen B. Franks, Department of Education, 50 N. Ripley St.,
Montgomery, AL 36130-3901, Telephone: 205-242-9111, Fax: 205-242-
0234
Alaska
Susan Doherty or Roxanne Sinz, Alaska School-to-Work Project, c-o
Unocal Corporation, P.O. Box 196247, Anchorage, AK 99519-6247,
Telephone: 907-263-7638 or 7623, Fax: 907-263-7698
Arizona
Susan Leeper, School-to-Work Coordinator, Governor's Office of
Community and Family Programs, 1700 West Washington, Room 320,
Phoenix, AZ 85007, Telephone: 602-542-3461, Fax: 602-542-3520
Arkansas
Mary Swoope, School-to-Work Coordinator, Arkansas Department of
Education, Vocational and Technical, Education Division, Three
Capitol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1083, Telephone: 501-682-1666,
Fax: 501-682-1509
California
Robert J. Hotchkiss, Employment Development Dept., Program and
Policy Development Branch, 800 Capitol Mall, MIC88, P.O. Box 826880,
Sacramento, CA 94280-0001, Telephone: 916-654-8656, Fax: 916-654-
5981
Colorado
Alaine Ginocchio, Governor's Office, 136 State Capitol, Denver, CO
80203, Telephone: 303-866-2155, Fax: 303-866-2003
Connecticut
Susan Vinkowski, Department of Education, Bureau of Applied
Curriculum, Technology and Career Information, Middletown, CT 06457,
Telephone: 203-638-4054, Fax: 203-638-4062
Delaware
Dr. Nikki Castle, Executive Director, Delaware School-to-Work,
Delaware Chamber of Commerce, 1201 N. Orange, Wilmington, DE 19801,
Telephone: 302/577-3762, Fax: 302-577-3281
District of Columbia
Dr. Deborah Evans, Executive Office of the Mayor, 441 North 4th
Street, NW, Suite 510S, Washington, D.C. 20001, Telephone: 202-727-
2578, Fax: 202-727-3486
Florida
Michael Brawer, School-to-Work Program Coordinator, Department of
Education, Florida Education Ctr., Room 1232, Tallahassee, FL 32399,
Telephone: 904-488-7394, Fax: 904-487-0426
Georgia
Gail Trapnell, GA School-to-Work Transition Project Administrator,
148 International Blvd., NE, Suite 638, Atlanta, GA 30303,
Telephone: 404-657-6740, Fax: 404-656-2683
Idaho
Karen M. Fraley, Idaho School-to-Work, IBM Complex, 500 East
Baybrook Court, Boise, ID 83706, Telephone: 208-338-8633
Illinois
Fran Beaumann, Dept. of Adult, Vocational and Technical Education,
100 N. First St., E-426, Springfield, IL 62777-0001, Telephone: 217-
782-4620, Fax: 217-782-9224
Indiana
Peggy O'Malley, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Workforce Development,
Indiana Government Center South, SE302, 10 North Senate Avenue,
Indianapolis, IN 46204, Telephone: 317-232-1832, Fax: 317-233-4793
Iowa
Harriet Howell Custer, Administrator, Division of Community
Colleges, Department of Education, Grimes State Office Building, Des
Moines, IA 50319-0146, Telephone: 515-281-8260, Fax: 515-281-6544
Hawaii
Kenneth Yamamoto, Assistant Superintendent, Department of Education,
P.O. Box 2360, Honolulu, HI 96804, Telephone: 808-586-3446, Fax:
808-586-3429
Kansas
Lee Droegemuller, Commissioner of Education, Kansas State Board of
Education, 120 SE 10th Avenue, Topeka, KS 66612-1182, Telephone:
913-296-3202, Fax: 913-296-7933
Kentucky
Ruth Bunch or Beth Brinly, Office of School-to-Work, Berry Hill
Annex, 700 Louisville Road, Frankfort, KY 40601, Telephone: 502-564-
5901, Fax: 502-564-5904
Louisiana
Chris W. Weaver, State Director, Secondary Vocational Education,
P.O. Box 94064, Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9064, Telephone: 504-342-5173,
Fax: 504-342-2059
Maine
Christopher D. Lyons, Maine Department of Education, State House
Station 23, Augusta, ME 04333, Telephone: 207-287-5854
Massachusetts
John Niles, Executive Director, Massachusetts Office for, School-to-
Work Transition, 101 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02110, Telephone:
617-451-5130, Fax: 617-451-1291
Michigan
Tom Benton, Michigan Jobs Commission, Victor Office Center, 3rd
Floor, 201 N. Washington Square, Lansing, MI 48913, Telephone: 517-
373-6432, Fax: 517-373-8179
Minnesota
John W. Mercer or Thomas Berg, Department of Education, 550 Cedar
Street, St. Paul, MN 55101, Telephone: 612-297-3115 or 282-6277,
Fax: 612-297-7201
Mississippi
Worth E. Haynes, Vocational and Technical Ed., Department of
Education, P.O. Box 771, Jackson, MS 39205-0771, Fax: 207-287-5894
Maryland
Lynne Gilli, Branch Chief of Career and Technology Services,
Maryland State Dept. of Education, 200 W. Baltimore Street,
Baltimore, MD 21201, Telephone: 410-767-0170, Fax: 410-333-2099
Montana
Jane A. Karas, Office of the Commissioner of Education, 2500
Broadway, Helena, MT 59620-3101, Telephone: 406-444-0316, Fax: 406-
444-1469
Nebraska
Darl Naumann, NE Dept. of Economic Development School-to-Work, P.O.
Box 94666, Lincoln, NE 68509-4666, Telephone: 402-471-3741, Fax:
402-471-3778
Nevada
Barbara Weinberg, Dept. of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation,
400 W. King, Suite 108, Carson City, NV 89710, Telephone: 702-687-
4310, Fax: 702-687-8917, Telephone: 601-359-3089, Fax: 601-359-2326
Missouri
Don Eisinger, Missouri Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education,
P.O. Box 480, Jefferson City, MO 65102, Telephone: 314-751-7563,
Fax: 314-526-3897
New Mexico
James Jimenez, Department of Finance and Administration, 180 Battaan
Memorial Building, Santa Fe, NM 87503, Telephone: 505-827-4985, Fax:
505-827-4984
New York
Johanna Duncan-Poitier, Assistant Commissioner, New York State
Education Dept., 89 Washington Avenue, Education Bldg., Rm 319EB,
Albany, NY 12234, Telephone: 518-474-8892, Fax: 518-474-0319
North Carolina
Loretta Martin, Governor's Comm. on Workforce Preparedness, 116
West Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27603, Telephone: 919-715-3300, Fax:
919-715-3974
[[Page 47009]]
New Hampshire
Stephen B. Bos, New Hampshire Job Training Council, 64 Old Suncook
Road, Concord, NH 03301, Telephone: 603-228-9500, Fax: 603-228-8557
New Jersey
Thomas Henry, Director, Office of STW Initiatives, New Jersey Dept.
of Education, CN500, Trenton, NJ 08625-0550, Telephone: 609-633-
0665, Fax: 609-633-0568
Oklahoma
Dr. Richard Makin, State Coordinator of School-to-Work, Department
of Vocational-Technical Education, 1500 West Seventh Avenue,
Stillwater, OK 74074-4364, Telephone: 405-743-5434, Fax: 405-743-
5541
Oregon
Bill Brady, Oregon Department of Education, 255 Capitol Street, NE,
Salem, OR 97310, Telephone: 503-378-3584, ext. 327, Fax: 503-378-
5156
Pennsylvania
Jean Wolfe, Department of Education, 333 Market Street, Tenth Floor,
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333, Telephone: 717-787-5820, Fax: 717-787-
7222
North Dakota
Dean Monteith, Admin. for School-to-Work, State Board for Vocational
and Technical Education, State Capitol, 15th Floor, Bismarck, ND
58505, Telephone: 701-328-3074, Fax: 701-328-1255
Ohio
Mary A. McCullough, Director, Ohio School-to-Work, 145 South Front
Street, Columbus, OH 43215, Telephone: 614-728-4630 or 4631, Fax:
614-466-5025
Rhode Island
Miriam Coleman, Dept. of Employment and Training, 101 Friendship
Street, Providence, RI 02903-3740, Telephone: 401-277-3930, Fax:
401-861-8030
or
Frank Santoro, Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education, 22 Hayes
Street, Providence, RI 02908, Telephone: 401-277-2691, Fax: 401-277-
2537
South Carolina
Bob Falls, Employment Security Commission, 1550 Gadsden Street, P.O.
Box 995, Columbia, SC 29202, Telephone: 803-737-0459
Puerto Rico
Agustin Marquez, Executive Director, School-to-Work, P.O. Box
366955, San Juan, PR 00936-6955, Telephone: 809-745-3478 or 765-
3644, Fax: 809-745-3478 or 765-3644
Tennessee
Russell Smith, Department of Education, Division of Vocational and
Technical Education, Gateway Plaze Building, 4th Floor, 710
Robertson Parkway, Nashville, TN 37243-0383, Telephone: 615-532-
4725, Fax: 615-532-8226
Texas
Ann Dorsey, Texas Council on Workforce and Economic Competitiveness,
P.O. Box 2241, Austin, TX 78768-2241, Telephone: 512-912-7150, Fax:
512-912-7172
Utah
Robert Brems, Associate Superintendent, Utah State Office of
Education, 250 East 500 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84111, Telephone:
801-538-7841, Fax: 801-538-7868
Vermont
Rich Tulikangas, Office of the Governor, 109 State Street,
Montpelier, VT 05609, Telephone: 802-828-3326, Fax: 802-828-3339
South Dakota
Mary Ellen Johnson, School-to-Work Coordinator, Department of Labor,
700 Governors Drive, Pierre, SD 57501, Telephone: 605-773-5017, Fax:
605-773-4211
Washington
Don Walgamott, Office of the Governor, 100 Insurance Building,
Olympia, WA 98504-3113, Telephone: 360-586-0828, Fax: 360-586-8380
West Virginia
David A. Mohr, Dept. of Education and the Arts, 1900 Kanawha Blvd.,
East, Charleston, WV, Telephone: 304-558-2440, Fax: 304-558-1311
Wisconsin
Vicki Poole, Director, Governor's Office for Workforce Excellence,
201 Washington Ave., Room 231, Madison, WI 53707, Telephone: 608-
266-0223, Fax: 608-261-6698
Wyoming
Marsha Price, School-to-Work Manager, 6106 Yellowstone Road,
Cheyenne, WY 82009, Telephone: 307-632-4907, Fax: 307-637-7773
Virginia
Randolph Beales, Office of the Secretary of Education, VA Business-
Education Partnership Program, 200-202 North 9th Street, Richmond,
VA 23219, Telephone: 804-692-0244, Fax: 804-692-0430.
[FR Doc. 95-95-22339 Filed 9-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P