mRsS". £i)C3 . Z-\ VY<
BlEDbb D273 flOVD A
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION/EMPLOYMENT TRAINING
COORDINATION IN MASSACHUSETTS
Pfttira^HiT DOCUMENTS
COLuCUvM
KAR 061989
imwprsitv ot Massachusetts
Umve1eposW COPY
Massachusetts State Council on Vocational Education
December 1987
g¥M Jhx-A
OFFICERS
Chairman
Robert J. Cohill
Vie*-Chair
John T. Mahoney
Tr»o*or«r
Gloria J. Williomt
Secretary
Michael F. Murphy
MEMBERS
Thomas M. Bellon
Evangel J. Bredaki*
John A. Jensen
Philip A. Pirrone
Michael J. Savage
Charlotte A. Scott
Harold E. Shively
Laura R. Studen
William M. Swanson, Jr.
o/i
Telephone
(617) 727-2499
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION/EMPLOYMENT TRAINING
COORDINATION IN MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts State Council on Vocational Education
December 1987
60
CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables
Abbreviation Key
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Preface
Chapter One:
Section A:
Section B:
Section C:
Section D:
Section E:
Local Level Findings
Perceptions
Service Delivery and Program Outcomes
Planning Input and Information Exchange
Membership
Benefits and Costs of Coordination
Section F: Feasibility/Desirability
Chapter Two: Regional Level Findings
Chapter Three: State Level Findings
Chapter Four: Overview and Discussion
Chapter Five: Council Recommendations
Appendix A: Survey Participants
Appendix B: SDA/Voc Ed Relationship Changes
Appendix C: JTPA Clients Served
Appendix D: Distribution of JTPA Funds
Appendix E: Services Voc Ed Supplies JTPA
Appendix F: Local Level Desired Coordination
Appendix G: State and Regional Survey Participants
• (
11
• • «
111
iv
V
1
4
6
22
40
49
56
58
68
81
90
102
- 1 -
LIST OF TABLES
Title
Table
1:
Table
2:
Table
3:
Table
4:
Table
5:
Table
6:
Table
7:
Table
8:
Table
9:
Table
10:
Table
11:
Table
12:
Table
13:
Table
14:
Table
15:
Table
16:
Table
17:
Table
18:
Table
19:
Table
20:
Table
21:
Table
22:
Table
23:
Table
24:
Table
25:
Table
26:
Table
27:
Table
28:
Table
29:
Table
30:
Table
31:
Table
32:
Table
33:
Table
34:
Table
35:
Page
Survey Response Rate 5
Characteristics of JTPA/Voc Ed Coordination 7
Extent Current Relationships Reflect Ideal 10
Effectiveness of Current Local Coordination 11
Recent Coordination Efforts or Changes 11
Most Encouraging Factors 14
Most Discouraging Factors 18
Title IIA Clients Served by Voc Institutions 2 3
Title IIB Clients Served by Voc Institutions .23
Cients Served in Public Schools 2 4
Clients Served with JTPA Funds 2 5
Institutions Reporting PY ' 86 JTPA Funds 25
SDA Report of Services Voc Ed Most Often
Provided JTPA 2 6
Voc Ed Report of Services Most Often Provided
to JTPA . 27
Institutions in Each Contract Mode in PY '86 2 8
Voc Ed Success Meeting JTPA Performance Standards. ... 29
Voc Ed Success Meeting JTPA Client Needs 3 0
Eight Percent Funds in PY '85 & PY ' 86 36
Eight Percent Fund Impact on Local
Coordination Quality 3 8
Perkins Application Review & Coordination
Promotion by PICs 41
Voc Ed Participation in PIC Annual Plan 4 2
Voc Institution Participation in JTPA Planning 43
Provision of Voc Ed Program Listings to PICs 44
Regularity of Voc Ed Inclusion in PIC Mailings 44
Staff Responsible for Coordination 45
Coordination Criteria 4 6
Benefit from Coordination Technical Assistance 47
Types of Technical Assistance 48
SDA Reports on PIC Membership 50
Voc Ed Reports on PIC Membership 51
Voc Ed Institutions on PIC Committees 53
Voc Ed Advisory Committees with PIC Members 55
Respondents Benefiting from Coordination 56
Most Desirabe Local Coordination Activities 61
Desirability of State Coordination Activities 64
- li -
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013
http://archive.org/details/vocationaleducatioOOmass
ABBREVIATIONS KEY
AFDC
ALL/VOC
CBO
CC
CETA
CLEECC
COMPHS
CTY/IND
DOE
EOEA
ET & E
GED
FT
N
OTEP
PIC
PT
PY
RFP
RVTS
SDA
SJTCC
VOC ED
VOC/SEC
Voc-Tech
X.
YCC
Aid for Families with Dependent Children
Compilation of responses from Secondary and
Postsecondary Vocational Education Institutions
Community-Based Organizations
Community Colleges
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act
Cabinet Level Education and Employment Coordinating
Council
Comprehensive High School with Chapter 74
Occupational Education Programs
City and Independent Vocational Schools, together
Massachusetts Department of Education
Executive Office of Economic Affairs
Employment Training and Education
General Education Development Certificate
(High School Equivalency)
Full time work
Number of responses to particular survey questions
Office of Training and Employment Policy
Private Industry Council
Part time work
Program Year
Request for Proposals
Regional Vocational-Technical Schools
(responses include 1 County Agricultural School)
Service Delivery Area (JTPA Adminstrative Entity)
State Job Training Coordination Council
Vocational Education
Compilation of responses from all Secondary
Vocational Institutions: Regional Vocational-
Technical Schools, City and Independent Vocational
Schools, Comprehensive High Schools with Chapter 7 4
Programs and Directors of Occupational Education
Vocational-Technical
Mean Rating
Youth Coordinating Council
• • ■
- in -
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Mary Jo Connelly, former Assistant to the Council, designed and
conducted local surveys, conducted regional interviews and wrote
Chapters One, Two, Four, and Five.
Dr. Elizabeth Useem of the University of Masssachusetts conducted
state-level interviews and wrote Chapter Three. She also consulted on
general survey and interview design.
Overall project direction and editing was provided by James Green,
former Executive Director of the Council.
Abigail T. Slayton, Acting Executive Director, wrote the Executive
Summary and provided final editing.
The Council wishes to thank Dr. Morgan Lewis and the National Center for
Research in Vocational Education at Ohio State University for consenting
to share the survey instrument used for the recently published first
annual Report on Vocational Eduation - Job Training Partnership Act
Coordination. Dr. Lewis was the primary researcher for this study.
The Council also wishes to thank the vocational and JTPA administrators
who took the time to be interviewed or to complete the local survey.
The time and effort of the Leadership Committee as well as Bill Fisher,
Dianne Dinger, Frank Llamas and Maria Grigorieff , who reviewed local
survey design and instruments, was also greatly appreciated by the
Council and its staff.
- IV -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Massachusetts State Council on Vocational Education
studied coordination between the Voc Ed and Employment Training
systems. Coordination perceptions and practices were examined at
the local, regional, and state levels. The Council hopes this
study will further the development of dialogue about coordination
between the two systems.
The Study involved an extensive survey of local level
service administrators as well as interviews with regional
managers and state policymakers at the Department of Education
and Executive Office of Economic Affairs. The study assessed:
institutional commitment to coordination,
effectiveness of current coordination,
factors encouraging coordination,
factors impeding coordination,
and desired coordination activities.
Commitment and Effectiveness
Most local areas expressed some commitment to coordination,
and it is a high priority at DOE and EOEA. All Voc Ed sectors
expressed the desire to participate in planning for employment
training.
Membership on PIC Boards has been widely perceived as the
best channel for participation. However, there are severe
practical limitations on Board size. Furthermore, few SDAs,
schools, or colleges reported having coordination criteria or
staff specifically responsible for coordination activities at the
local level. The Voc Ed sector reported that current
coordination is largely ineffective, and SDAs reported it only
moderately effective.
Regional managers expressed a guarded optimism about the
future of coordination. Staff at DOE were somewhat pessimistic
about current as well as future coordination efforts, seeing a
need for fundamental structural and attitudinal changes in both
systems. OTEP regional staff were a little more optimistic about
coordination in the future, but expressed reservations about the
ability of state policy initiatives to improve local coordination
State policymakers were largely optimistic about the
direction in which coordination is moving and the potential for
state leadership to encourage local level coordination. The
general consensus was that coordination "has a long way to go,"
but interagency cooperation and collaboration have improved
significantly in the past few years.
- v -
Impetus
The factors which local providers reported most encouraged
them to coordinate are:
- personal relationships between administrators,
- client needs,
- and state level leadership from the Governor,
State Council on Vocational Education, and
Youth Coordinating Council.
Scarcity of resources was not among the factors driving
local coordination, suggesting that funding cuts alone will not
encourage its development. Rather, staff reductions resulting
from funding cuts were reported as a barrier to coordination
because the time investment necessary for its establishment was
not feasible.
Barriers
Local providers reported that the greatest barriers to
coordination are:
- turf conflicts,
- difficulty in communicating across systems,
- differences in definitions of allowable
services and budget items,
- and the staff and time demands of coordination.
Some examples of the poor communication between the systems
at the local level are that SDAs are unaware of the majority of
services Voc Ed provides JTPA clients, and many Voc Ed
institutions are unaware they could participate in developing
proposals for Eight Percent grants.
The fact that JTPA funds cannot be used as a match for
Perkins funded activities, but Perkins funds qualify to match
JTPA is also a source of frustration to those attempting
coordinated activities. This federally mandated impediment could
be addressed during the upcoming period of Perkins Act
reauthorization. Despite these barriers, there was near
unanimity that the benefits of coordination make it well worth
the effort.
Desired Activities
Local and regional levels desired the same coordination
activities. These are:
- sharing of labor market information,
- reciprocal referrals,
- joint or reciprocal technical assistance,
- and joint program funding.
- vi -
State, regional, and local levels also were all in agreement
that jointly staffed agencies and joint intake, assessment, and
evaluation procedures are neither desirable nor feasible for
encouraging coordination.
Local administrators desired state level interventions
similar to those they desired for the local level. These
included:
- sharing labor market planning information,
- technical assistance,
- interagency agreements,
- and joint meetings.
At the state and regional levels, common priorities for
coordination were described, including:
- a focus on client need,
- building interagency working relationships,
- resource coordination for specific program
initiatives and targeted populations,
- sharing information,
- and developing working models of coordination.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Virtually all visions of effective local coordination at all
levels included improved communication, information sharing, and
on-going dialogue.
Local service providers are clearly influenced by state
policy initiatives and state agency modelling of collaborative
behavior. State agencies could support, encourage, and model the
prerequisite dialogue necessary for coordination to occur.
However, successful coordination requires both state and local
level efforts. State policy initiatives and local commitment are
both necessary ingredients for effective coordination.
State initiatives to encourage coordination should be
designed to cause lasting change at the local level, increasing
the capacity of local systems to institutionalize a coordinated
planning process.
The Council recommends that DOE and EOEA:
1. Fund local inter-system teams to develop and disseminate
coordination resource and training workshop guides;
2. Fund staff positions at the local level with
responsibility for linking the systems;
3 . Encourage involvement of education committees in local
plan development, and develop processess to facilitate
on-going local dialogue;
- vn -
4. Fund development and articulation of open-entry and exit
program and support services for JTPA clients;
5. Assist in the alleviation of coordination barriers;
6. Support SDA and Voc Ed information exchange and
planning input by encouraging:
- SDA review of Perkins funding applications,
- availability of Voc Ed progam listings to SDAs,
- participation of the Voc Ed sector in
development of local employment training plans,
and reciprocal review of JTPA and Voc Ed state
plans;
7. Encourage broad Voc Ed membership on PIC Boards and
Committees and SDA/PIC membership on Voc Ed General
and Program Advisory Committees.
- vin -
PREFACE
For the past year, the Massachusetts State Council on Vocational
Education has studied coordination between the State and local
vocational education (Voc Ed) system and the employment training system
funded under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) . The Council has
focused on coordination efforts that involve local Community Colleges
(CCs) , Regional Vocational-Technical Schools (RVTSs) , City and
Independent Vocational Schools (CTY/INDs) , and Chapter 74 (Massachusetts
Voc Ed Law) approved programs in Comprehensive High Schools (COMPHSs) in
partnership with JTPA Private Industry Councils (PICs) and Service
Delivery Areas (SDAs) . The primary state agencies concerned are: the
Massachusetts Department of Education's (DOE) Division of Occupational
Education and the Executive Office of Economic Affair's (EOEA) Office of
Training and Employment Policy (OTEP) .
The main purpose of this study was to further the coordination
dialogue which has been emerging between the Voc Ed and JTPA systems at
the state level and in many localities. Additionally, the Council is
drawing on this work to make recommendations on the adequacy and
effectiveness of Voc Ed/JTPA coordination to the Massachusetts Board of
Education, the Governor, the Massachusetts Job Training Coordination
Council (SJTCC) and the U.S. Secretaries of Education and Labor in
fulfillment of evaluation mandates [S. 112 (d) (9) (A) ] of the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational Education Act.
- 2 -
Given its limited resources, the Council felt it could best
contribute to the coordination dialogue by gatherng data on current
perceptions and practices. This information could provide more useful
planning information to state and local administrators than a more
traditional analysis of JTPA and Perkins requirements and agency
objectives. It would also enable the Council to frame more targeted
policy recommendations.
From June to September 1987, the Council conducted an intensive
survey of secondary and postsecondary Voc Ed administrators and JTPA
Directors across the Commonwealth. This survey was a lengthy written
questionnaire, with approximately 3 0 questions requesting both
qualitative and quantative data. It had 3 objectives:
1) Collection of baseline information on current local coordination
practices, including:
— joint board and advisory committee membership
— planning input and information exchange
— type, quantity and mode of services delivered to SDA/PICs by
Voc Ed institutions (CCs, RVTSs, CTY/INDs, and COMPHSs)
— general self assessment of organizations and program outcomes
2) Comparison of SDA/PIC and Voc Ed institution perceptions of Voc Ed/
JTPA coordination across the Commonwealth, including:
— desirability/feasibility of coordinating specific services and
practices;
— state and local policies and practices that facilitate or hindeii
coordination;
— costs and benefits to institutions of attempted coordination
i
3) Comment on coordination of state Voc Ed and JTPA systems through:
— analysis of the adequacy and effectiveness of existing local
coordination practices for meeting agency objectives and needs;
— recommendations for targeting state policy and practices around
specific local and state goals.
- 3 -
Survey questions were grouped into six categories: Perceptions of
Coordination; Service Delivery and Program Outcomes; Planning Input and
Information Exchange; Membership; Benefits and Costs; Feasibility and
Desirability. Significant findings from the local survey are reported
and interpreted in this topical order in Chapter One.
To help put local level findings in a broader policy context, the
coordination study included interviews with regional and state agency
staff from DOE and EOEA. Regional interview findings are discussed in
Chapter Two. Findings from state level interviews are summarized in
Chapter Three.
Chapter Four presents an assessment of the adequacy and
effectiveness of current coordination practices for meeting citizens'
Voc Ed and employment training needs. It presents analysis of local,
regional and state level findings in the context of both present needs
and potential future directions for coordination. Chapter Five
concludes the report with a set of Council Recommendations for
facilitating Voc Ed/JTPA coordination practices at state and local
levels.
- 4 -
CHAPTER ONE
LOCAL LEVEL FINDINGS
The design of the local level survey included both questions
developed by the Council and questions adapted from a survey instrument
of the National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
Approximately one-third of the survey questions were adapted from the
instrument used in the National Center's recent study which culminated
in its first annual Report on Vocational Education - Job Training
Partnership Act Coordination. The National Center's instrument was more
sophisticated than the Council would otherwise have been able to access,
given staff and time constraints, and offered a comparative framework
for analyzing much of this data in a national, as well as local, context
All survey questions were reviewed and revised by the Council's
Leadership Committee (local program operators) before the questionnaire
was distributed. The questionnaires were also reviewed at several
design stages by Maria Grigorieff of OTEP and Frank Llamas of DOE. The
two survey instruments can be obtained from the State Council; because
of their length, they were not included in this document.
- 5 -
In June 1987, a set of companion questionnaires—requesting the
same kinds of information but directed at the two separate sectors — were
sent to Directors of the 15 JTPA SDAs and to administrators of 84
secondary and postsecondary Vocational Education institutions. All 15
CC Presidents, all 26 RVTS Superintendent-Directors, Directors of 17
City and 3 Independent Vocational Schools and 3 County Agricultural
Schools were included in the survey, along with a sample of 2 0
Occupational Education Directors in COMPHSs. Participating institutions
are listed in Appendix A.
In September, when analysis began, the survey response rate was
53%, ranging from 50-60% for different sectors (See Table 1).
Sector
SDA
Total
TABLE 1: SURVEY RESPONSE RATE
# Requests # Responses % Responses
15 8 53%
CC
15
9
60%
RTVS
29
16
55%
CTY/IND
20
10
50%
COMPHS
20
10
50%
99
53
53%
Respondents
Planning Staff
Executive Director
Youth/School Coordinator
Academic Dean/Associate
Supt . /Director
Voc Ed Director
Occ Ed Director
Findings from the local survey furnish baseline information
on current local coordination practices. They also offer a comparative
local view of Voc Ed and JTPA administrators' concepts of coordination,
encouraging and discouraging factors, costs and benefits. They identify
local practices and services judged more or less desirable for attempted
coordination, as well as state policy measures seen as most and least
likely to facilitate local coordination.
- 6 -
SECTION A: PERCEPTIONS OF COORDINATION
To avoid imposing a preconceived definition of coordination,
the study's first question asked each respondent to "describe an 'ideal'
relationship" between his or her own SDA or Voc Ed institution and the
other sector. The matrix in Table 2, on the following page, lists the
eight characteristics of the ideal which were noted by respondents from
each sector.
Characteristics are marked X if at least one respondent in
the sector identified it as part of ideal coordination. X+ is used to
indicate elements named by 50% or more of the respondents within a
sector. The focus here is on identifying diverging and converging
emphases within and across sectors. Yet, the sectoral emphases must be
understood in the context of each local JTPA/Voc Ed relationship.
Main headings identify broad areas for institutional
coordination which were included in descriptions of ' ideal ' Voc Ed/JTPA
relationships. Subheadings distinguish different emphases or
interpretations of what these coordinating elements would mean in
practice.
7
TABLE 2: CHARACTERISTICS OF JTPA/VOC ED COORDINATION
CHARACTERISTIC SPA CC RVTS CTY/IND COMPHS
1) Communication
- Articulation of service goals
- Minimized turf conflicts
- SDAs informing schools
- Schools informing PICs
2) Planning
3) Nonduplication
- Complementary Activities
4) Membership Exchange
5) Referrals
6) Programming & Operation
- Cooperation on all goals
- All employment training &
retraining
- All youth & young adults
employment training
- Many educational efforts
besides JTPA funds
- Develop model & joint
programs for disadvantaged
7) Contracting for Services
- Regular SDA contracting with
Voc Ed
- School provision of training
'slots' to SDA/PIC
- School right of ' first refusal '
on employment training
- Schools as "Center of Operations"
for PIC
- Schools collect administration
fees for service delivery
x+
x+
x+
x+
X+
X
X
X
X
X
X
x+
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8) Focus
Serve students and young adults
Train/retrain adults & dropouts
Develop model programs for
target populations
Client-centered
X
X
- 8 -
Dimensions of Coordination Envisaged
Virtually all respondents agreed that Voc Ed/JTPA coordination
must be grounded in improved communications — information sharing and
ongoing dialogue. There seems a clear consensus that establishing
channels for regular dialogue between Voc Ed institutions and the local
PIC/SDA is a necessary precondition for coordination. While most
references to communication were general, some respondents within each
sector listed specific purposes for communication.
A significant number of respondents from all elements in the Voc
Ed sector emphasized joint advance planning and a cooperative approach
to decision making, along with exchange of members. No SDA responses
explicitly included joint planning or increased exchange of members as
elements in their definition of coordination. But several SDAs, along
with several CCs, discussed nonduplication and complementarity — both of
which imply some degree of planning — as important elements in a
coordinated approach to meeting client and agency needs.
Although a number of respondents from SDAs and all Voc Ed sectors
stated that coordination must include programming and operation, there
was a range of visions with potentially conflicting focus and scope.
There was no consensus on coordinated programming and operation within
any sector. The broadest scope for program coordination, a 'totally
cooperative effort of mutual support to attain agreed-upon goals" was
described by several CCs and CTY/IND schools. Other respondents from
the Voc Ed sector envisaged coordination as an effort broadly concerned
with all training and retraining, with Voc Ed institutions acting as
full partners in the employment training system.
9 -
Several SDAs concurred that Voc Ed should have input into planning — but
only for employment training programs concerning youth and young
adults. A CC and a COMPHS suggested that cooperative programming should
include not only JTPA funded programs, but also many other educational
efforts. Several COMPHSs stated that coordination should focus on
developing model programs for target populations. The essential
conflict was the focus of coordinated efforts. Most SDAs surveyed
believe that coordination should focus on serving students and young
adults, while many CCs and vocational schools clearly seek involvement
in planning and delivering training/retraining programs serving
out-of -school (adult and dropout) as well as in-school populations.
However, a common 'client-centered1 focus for coordination efforts was
expressed across both SDA and Voc Ed sectors. There was general
agreement on the need to improve the ability of all agencies to meet
needs on a client basis.
There was also a wide range of opinion on the scope and form of
contracted services which constitute 'ideal' coordination. First, no
SDA or COMPHS included contracting as essential to their concept of
coordination. Some CCs, RVTSs and CTY/INDs described a "right of first
refusal" for Voc Ed institutions or envisaged the vocational system
serving as the center of PIC training operations. Others described
coordination as including "regular contracting" with Voc Ed institutions
to offer JTPA training in daytime and/or after-hours programs, but short
of first refusal rights. Still others described coordination as Voc Ed
providing training 'slots' to SDA/PICs, and some Voc Ed respondents
qualified this even further — "as available."
- 10 -
Respondents were next asked to evaluate the extent to which their
agency's or institution's current relationship with the other sector
reflects this self-defined ideal, rating it on a scale of one to five
(with one meaning not at all and five meaning very well) .
Responses were mostly on the negative end of the scale, from 2.0
to 3.0 — which could be interpreted as little to somewhat congruence
between current and 'ideal' coordination. SDAs surveyed judged current
relationships the most satisfactory. However, the ratings were just at
the median point of the scale. Among Voc Ed institutions, CCs are least
dissatisfied with existing relationships, and RVTSs are most
dissatisfied.
TABLE 3: EXTENT CURRENT RELATIONSHIPS REFLECT IDEAL
1 (Not at all) - 5 (Very Well)
Sector X N
SDA 3.0 8
CC 2.8 8
COMPHS 2.6 15
CTY/IND 2.4 10
RVTS 2.0 10
VOC/SEC 2.3 35
ALL/ VOC 2.4 43
Participants were also asked to rate the effectiveness of the
existing level of coordination between their local SDA/PIC and secondary
and postsecondary Voc Ed institutions for meeting the training and
related needs of local JTPA-eligible individuals. Employment training
agencies judged the situation to fall somewhat on the positive end of
the scale. All institutions rated their current local situations
- 11 -
only slightly effective — much closer to ineffective. RVTSs, again
judged coordination to be least effective, but CCs and CTY/INDs were
only slightly less dissatisfied.
TABLE 4: EFFECTIVENESS OF CURRENT LOCAL COORDINATION
5 (Very effective) - 1 (Ineffective)
Sector/Rating 5 4 3 2 1 X
SDA
COMPHS
CTY/IND
CC
RVTS
VOC/ SEC
ALL/VOC
Respondents were asked further to note any recent coordination
efforts or changes in the Voc Ed/JTPA relationship in which their agency
or institution has participated. Three fourths of employment
training/SDA agencies reported recent changes or coordination efforts.
A majority of Voc Ed institutions reported recent changes or efforts,
with COMPHSs rating this highest and CTY/INDs rating it lowest:
TABLE 5: RECENT COORDINATION EFFORTS OR CHANGES
25%
12%
25%
38%
0%
3.3
22%
0%
22%
11%
44%
2.4
10%
0%
30%
20%
40%
2.2
0%
12%
38%
0%
50%
2.1
7%
0%
14%
29%
50%
1.9
12%
0%
21%
21%
45%
2.1
10%
2%
24%
17%
46%
2.1
Sector
% Changed
SDA
75%
COMPHS
60%
RVTS
56%
CC
56%
CTY/IND
30%
12 -
Recent Changes
Participants were asked about "recent changes in the relationship
or recent coordination efforts in which (they) have participated" in
order to determine whether local program operators have been affected by
recent federal and state policy emphases on facilitating coordination.
Effects were clearly felt in many localities, and some of these could be
traced to state and federal coordination mandates.
In particular, some Voc Ed institutions attributed increased
coordination to the new federal requirement for academic remediation in
JTPA Summer Youth programs. SDAs were more likely to cite state
initiatives like Commonwealth Futures and Adult Literacy as forces
promoting local coordination. In general, SDAs more often linked recent
changes to state policy, while Voc Ed institutions, including CCs,
tended to focus more on PIC membership and increased contracting for
services. Recent changes reported by each sector are listed in Appendix
B.
Encouraging and Discouraging Factors
As a final element in evaluating each sector's perceptions of
current JTPA/Voc Ed coordination, respondents were asked to rate the
importance of a series of factors in encouraging or discouraging
coordination in their communities.
To identify encouraging elements, this study used 13 factors
delineated by the National Center's coordination study. Respondents
were asked to rate these on a scale of one to five, with one meaning not
at all encouraging and five meaning very encouraging. Space was
provided for specifying additional encouraging factors.
- 13
Discouraging factors included the 13 identified in the national
study, along with seven added by local program operators who previewed
questionnaires for this study. Space for listing additional
discouraging factors was also provided, and the same one to five rating
scale employed.
In Tables Six and Seven, the five factors judged most
encouraging/discouraging are listed for each sector. Overlap in mean
ratings made it impossible to determine strict first, second and third
most important factors across sectors (e.g. 4 RVTS encouraging factors
were all rated 3.0, and 4 discouraging factors were all rated 3.1). The
most encouraging and discouraging factors for each sector are listed to
offer a basis for initial comparison and discussion. Commentary
following each chart more comprehensively analyzes this key element of
perception.
Encouraging Factors
In the analysis that follows, two threads of the survey results
will be interwoven: comparison of priority rankings for factors across
sectors and relative weightings of how encouraging different respondents
rated each factor. On a scale of one (not at all) to five (very) ,
employment training administrators' mean rating for encouraging factors
was 3.5 — more than moderately encouraging, while vocational educators
rated them slightly lower — about 3.0. Among vocational educators,
encouraging factors averaged: 3.3 for COMPHSs, 3.1 for CCs, 3.0 for
RVTSs, and 2.6 for CTY/INDs. Furthermore, those factors ranked as most
encouraging range only around the 'moderate' level. Table Six lists the
most encouraging factors.
14 -
TABLE 6: MOST ENCOURAGING FACTORS
1 (Not at All) - 5 (Very)
Sector Factor X
CC
RVTS
SPA
Personal relationships among administrators 4 . 0
More comprehensive services 3.5
Strong Governor support for coordination 3 . 5
Coordination funding incentives 3 . 4
Strong YCC support for coordination 3 . 3
Strong Governor support for coordination 3 . 7
Personal relationships among administrators 3 . 1
Strong State Council support for coordination 3 . 0
More comprehensive services 3.0
Strong YCC support for coordination 2 . 9
More comprehensive services 3.2
Strong Governor support for coordination 3 . 0
Strong State Council support for coordination 3.0
History of successful coordination 3.0
Service duplication avoidance 3.0
CTY/IND
Personal relationships among administrators 3 . 2
History of successful coordination 2.7
More comprehensive services 2.5
Effective JTPA service delivery 2.5
Service duplication avoidance 2.4
COMPHS
More comprehensive services 3 . 6
Personal relationships among administrators 3 . 3
Strong State Council support for coordination 3 . 3
Desire to share noneconomic resources 3.2
Strong YCC support for coordination 3 . 1
Personal relationships were perceived as the first or second most
important encouraging factor by SDA (4.0), CC, CTY/IND and COMPHS
respondents (3.1-3.3). RVTSs rated it only sixth (2.8). Client/student
needs were also almost universally cited as a top factor — of first
importance for RVTSs and COMPHS s (3.2 & 3.0). State level leadership
was perceived as another encouraging factor for most institutions
surveyed. SDAs, CCs, and RVTSs listed 'strong push from the Governor"
as first or second in importance (3.0-3.7); COMPHSs listed it sixth
(3.0), CTY/INDs tenth (2.0).
- 15 -
SDAs, CCs and COMPHSs all listed "strong push by Youth
Coordinating Council" among the five most important factors (3.3, 2.9,
3.1). By way of contrast, this factor was seen as the first or second
least important by RVTSs (2.3) and CTY/INDs (2.0). CCs, RVTSs, and
COMPHSs all listed "strong push from State Voc Ed Council" as second or
third most important (3.0, 3.0, 3.3). This factor was near the bottom
of the list for SDAs (2.6) and last for CTY/INDs (1.9).
Different emphases emerged across sectors regarding how resources
are perceived to influence coordination. SDAs cited "presence for
funding incentives to promote coordination" as among the most
encouraging factors (3.4), while CCs ranked these in the middle (2.8)
and RVTSs, CTY/INDs, and COMPHSs put funding incentives at or near the
bottom of their lists (2.5, 2.0, 2.6). Conversely, RVTSs and CTY/INDs
highly rated "avoiding duplication and overlap in service delivery" (3.0
& 2.4). COMPHSs included "desire to share noneconomic resources" in the
top five (2.9), while SDAs ranked resource sharing and nonduplication in
the lower half of their listing (2.6). CCs ranked these in the middle
(2.8) .
On this basis, the different sectors might be characterized as
responding to different kinds of encouragement: SDAs seem to respond
strongly, and CCs somewhat, to active coordination incentives,
particularly funding. RVTS, CTY/IND and COMPHS systems appear to
coordinate in a more preventative fashion, responding to perceived gaps
or ineffeiencies. "Scarcity of resources" was not seen by any sector as
encouraging coordination; it was in the bottom quarter for all sectors
and last for SDAs (2.0-2.8). The message seems to be that funding cuts
will not, in themselves, drive Voc Ed and JTPA systems to coordinate.
- 16 -
"Prior history of successful coordination" with the other system
was highly ranked by only RVTSs and CTY/INDs (2.7 & 3.0). Other sectors
put this near the middle of the list (but with similar weightings of
(2.8-3.1). Federal coordination mandates in the Perkins Voc Ed Act and
JTPA were ranked at middle-to-low importance; for CCs they were at the
very bottom (2.3 & 2.4). The SDA was the only sector that ranked
requirements in their own law (JTPA) as considerably more influential
than mandates in the other law (3.0 to 2.3). Even so, this result was
in the mid-range of factor ratings. Voc Ed institutions made little
distinction between mandates in Perkins and JTPA. This finding suggests
either that federal coordination mandates have been poorly communicated
to the local level, or that effective coordination must be approached
less as a matter of compliance than it has up to now.
Finally, the perceived effectiveness of the other system in
delivering employment training services was listed in the bottom quarter
(weighted 2.4-2.9), not considered to be encouraging coordination by
most SDA or Voc Ed respondents. CTY/INDs were the exception, ranking it
third at (3.0). This result could be interpreted in two ways: either
most respondents had little confidence in the effectiveness of the other
sector or they did not see judgements of comparative effectiveness as a
motivating factor behind coordination efforts.
To summarize, this analysis of factors judged by each sector to be
most encouraging, and how encouraging these are perceived to be,
challenges assumptions abut what motivates local agencies to
coordinate. It must be acknowledged that institutions are responding to
pre-selected factors (only 2 respondents used the write-in slot) . But,
points of agreement emerge on personal relationships between
administrators, client needs, and state leadership as important
encouraging factors. Points of divergence were also identified.
- 17 -
Findings point up the limited extent to which any individual factor was
considered important for encouraging coordination, and the fact that
SDAs, on average, found listed factors to have been generally more
encouraging than did CTY/IND schools, with CCs and RVTSs falling in the
middle.
Discouraging Factors
Rank listings of factors judged by each sector to be most
discouraging offer a basis for comparison and a starting point for
discussion on removing barriers to coordination. Discouraging factors
were perceived as slightly more weighty than encouraging factors — all
above 3.2: 3.5 for SDAs, 3.7 for CCs, 3.4 for CTY/INDs, and 3.2 for
RVTSs and COMPHSs. There was less agreement across sectors on
discouraging than on encouraging factors. Table Seven displays the most
discouraging factors.
- 18 -
TABLE 7: MOST DISCOURAGING FACTORS
1 (Not at all) - 5 (Very)
Sector Factor X
CC
RVTS
SPA
Different definitions of allowable services 3.5
"Turf Issues" 3.4
Staff & time demands of the RFP process 3 . 3
JTPA performance-based contracts and standards 3 . 1
Inadequate understanding of JTPA 3 . 1
"Turf Issues" 4.1
Lack of coordination within JTPA 3 . 8
Difficulty of communication between Voc Ed & JTPA 3 . 8
Planning or funding cycle problems 3.7
Different definitions of allowable services 3.3
Different definitions of allowable services 3.3
Staff & time demands of the RFP process 3.2
Difficulty of communication between Voc Ed & JTPA 3 . 1
"Turf Issues" 3.1
Differences in local service area boundaries 3 . 1
Local JTPA desire to provide services directly 3.1
CTY/IND
"Turf Issues" 3.7
JTPA performance-based contracts & standards 3 . 4
Lack of coordination within JTPA 3 . 3
Matching fund requirements for shared programs 3.3
Staff & time demands of the RFP process 3 . 3
COMPHS
Different definitions of allowable services 3.4
Inadequate understanding of JTPA 3 . 2
"Turf Issues" 3.1
History of unsuccessful coordination 3 . 0
Staff & time demands of the RFP process 3 . 0
With 20 factors listed and an additional write-in option,
consensus emerged on two factors. "Turf issues related to perceived
responsibility and roles" was listed across all sectors as the first or
second factor most discouraging coordination between Voc Ed or JTPA
institutions and the other sector (3.1-4.1). "Differences in respective
definitions of allowable services and/or budgetary items" was perceived
as most important by SDAs, RVTSs and COMPHSs (3.3-3.5), among the top
five factors by CCs (3.3) and in the top third by CTY/INDs (2.9).
- 19 -
There was fairly broad agreement on two other factors. All
sectors but CCs listed "staff & time demands on the RFP process" among
the top five most discouraging factors (3.0-3.3). CCs listed it eighth
(3.1). CCs and RVTSs listed "Difficulty of communication between Voc Ed
& JTPA/too many channels to go through" (3.1-3.8) as the second and
third most discouraging factors, respectively. SDAs and CTY/INDs listed
it sixth — still in the top third (3.0). "Lack of coordination within
the JTPA sector was rated as a very discouraging factor (in the top
third) by all Voc Ed systems (2.9-3.8), while "lack of coordination
within Voc Ed" was rated considerably less important, thirteenth, by SDA
administrators (2.4).
Conversely, SDAs ranked "inadequate understanding of Voc Ed
legislation, roles, procedures" as the fourth most discouraging factor
(3.1), while most Voc Ed respondents saw "inadequate understanding of
JTPA" as of mid-to-low importance (2.5-2.9; only COMPHSs ranked it
second (3.2). "JTPA performance standards and performance-based
contracting" were also perceived by SDAs to be important barriers to
coordination (3.1). Yet, of the Voc Ed systems, only the CTY/INDs rated
performance standards of primary importance (2.4-3.0). Similarly, only
RVTSs perceived some SDAs' desire to provide services directly as a
major obstacle to coordination (third importance, 3.1); CCs rated it
ninth (3.1). CTY/IND schools, COMPHSs and JTPA sectors put it near the
bottom of the list (2.3-2.4). RVTS was also the only sector to perceive
"differences in local service area boundaries" as a major obstacle
(3.1). Other sectors, including CCs, listed this factor among the least
important (2.0-2.4).
- 20 -
Regulatory issues like "matching fund requirements" (2.9-3.3),
"differences in eligibility requirements" (2.4-3.2) and "planning or
funding cycle problems" (2.5-3.7) were rated as somewhat discouraging
for SDA and Voc Ed sectors almost across the board. Among the Voc Ed
systems, CTY/INDs found matching funds most, and eligibility
requirements least, discouraging, while RVTSs ranked matching funds as
less discouraging than the others. "No history of coordination"
(2.7-2.8) was also seen as a factor somewhat discouraging to
coordination.
"Paperwork requirements for eligibility" (2.4-2.8) and "personal
or philosophical conflicts between administrators" were seen as only
slightly discouraging (2.3-2.8). SDAs perceived "lack of availability"
and "inaccessible location" of Voc Ed facilities as falling in the
middle range — somewhat discouraging (2.9 & 2.8). Voc Ed systems rated
these factors as among the least discouraging (1.9-2.3). Factors which
SDA and Voc Ed respondents agreed were among the least discouraging
included: the other sector's "ineffectiveness in delivering employment
training" or "inadequate capacity to address client literacy and basic
skill needs." "Inability to coordinate support services" was also not
judged to be a factor discouraging coordination.
To summarize, the wide agreement on "turf issues" indicates that
one of the greatest barriers to coordination is psychological and
perceptual — and could be in large part overcome through dialogue. The
emphasis on "difficulty of communication/ too many channels to go
through" as a major discouraging factor confirms the earlier conclusion
that establishing effective local communication channels is an essential
prerequisite for coordination. The JTPA sector's "inadequate
understanding of Voc Ed" would also be improved by ongoing communication.
- 21 -
Other less subjective barriers were identified. Two of the major
obstacles to coordination — '"differences in respective definitions of
allowable services and/or budgetary items" and "staff and time
demands" — • could possibly both be partially alleviated by state level
interventions. Regulatory issues like matching, eligibility,
performance standards and performance-based contracting remain, but it
is promising that such relatively intractable factors were judged to be
only somewhat discouraging. Geographical boundaries also appear to be a
concern for only one sector. Other factors rated slightly
discouraging — paperwork, inaccessibility or lack of availability of
vocational facilities — could most effectively be solved at the local
level.
- 22 -
SECTION B: SERVICE DELIVERY AND PROGRAM OUTCOMES
Because there is no indicator in the JTPA management information
system to denote a primary service provider, it is very difficult to
measure the extent to which Voc Ed institutions are currently delivering
JTPA funded services. This study collected information from both
systems on numbers of programs and enrollments for which JTPA contracted
with Voc Ed institutions in the Program Year 1986 (PY '86). Information
was collected from the SDAs according to JTPA funding source: Title IIA
(Main allocation) and Title IIB (Summer Youth) funds, as well as for
Title III (Displaced Worker) and Eight Percent Education Coordination
JTPA funds.
Given that the response rate was just over 50 percent, this data
provides an incomplete picture. It does, however, offer a sense of the
scope and range of JTPA contracting and service delivery through Voc Ed
institutions. There was an effort to measure JTPA's funding running
through Voc Ed institutions as a proportion of each SDA's total JTPA
funding, although this data is less complete than the rest and far from
conclusive. Data on numbers of JTPA funded programs Voc Ed institutions
delivered was not analyzed, as no common definition of "program" could
be determined.
Service Delivery Area Reports
Table Eight presents SDA reports of the numbers of Title IIA
clients served in Voc Ed institutions in PY 1986.
23
TABLE 8: TITLE IIA CLIENTS SERVED BY VOC INSTITUTIONS
Voc-Tech
Other Public
Community
# Clients
Schools
Secondary
Colleges
1000+
0
0
0
500-1000
1
1
0
250-499
0
0
0
51-250
0
2
1
11-50
0
2
1
1-10
4
0
2
-0-
2
2
3
In this sample of eight SDAs in PY 1986, SDAs most often reported
contracting with Voc-Tech Schools (4) to serve an annual total of fewer
than 10 Title IIA clients, and two SDAs did not contract with any
Voc-Tech Schools. SDAs reported contracting with Non-Vocational Public
Secondary Schools for larger total numbers of clients (2 for 11-50, 2
for 51-250) , although again two SDAs did not contract with any of these
schools. There was one case each of an SDA contracting with a Voc-Tech
School and a COMPHS for services to more than 500 clients in PY 1986.
Where Title IIA funds were concerned, SDAs reported contracting with CCs
for an annual total of between one and 250 clients, with three SDAs not
contracting with any CCs to deliver Title IIA services. Title IIA
allocations represent the majority of JTPA funds, and these funds go
directly to SDAs. Table Nine, below, indicates SDA reports of Title IIB
clients in Voc Ed institutions for summer youth programs.
TABLE 9: TITLE IIB CLIENTS SERVED BY VOC INSTITUTIONS
Voc-Tech
Other Public
Community
# Clients
Schools
Secondary
Colleges
1000+
1
0
0
500-1000
0
0
0
250-499
0
1
0
51-250
1
2
1
11-50
0
3
1
1-10
1
0
0
-0-
5
2
6
- 24 -
In this sample, SDAs which funded Voc Ed institutions to serve
Title IIB Summer Youth clients also tended to contract for services to
fewer than 2 50 clients. There were two exceptions to this general
rule: one SDA funded service delivery to more than 1,000 youth through
Voc-Tech Schools and a second SDA delivered services to between 250 and
400 youth through Other Public Secondary Schools. Overall, the majority
of SDA respondents contracted with Other Public Secondary Schools, but,
not with Voc-Tech Schools or CCs to deliver Summer Youth services in PY
1986. It is likely that these figures will look quite different for PY
1987 since Congress has mandated that all Title IIB programs contain an
academic or remedial component.
With complete client data reported by only five SDAs, attempts to
estimate the proportion of JTPA funded clients served in secondary and
postsecondary Voc Ed institutions were hardly conclusive.
TABLE 10: CLIENTS SERVED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Title
IIA
% Clients
# SDAs
60%
2
54%
1
34%
1
5%
1
2%
1
Title
IIB
% Clients
# SDAs
100%
2
75%
1
28%
1
20%
1
Vocational Education Reports
Voc Ed administrators were also asked to report data on services
delivered to JTPA clients by program and by funding title. Voc Ed
reports on numbers of JTPA clients served by each system (CC, RVTS,
CTY/IND, COMPHS) in PY 1986 appear in Table 11. In Appendix C, these
totals are broken out by Title IIA (Main) , Title IIB (Summer Youth) , and
Eight Percent Education Coordination funding sources.
- 25 -
TABLE 11: CLIENTS SERVED WITH JTPA FUNDS
# Clients
RVTS
CTY/IND
COMPHS
CC
1000+
0
0
0
0
500-1000
0
0
0
0
250-499
1
1
0
1
51-250
0
0
2
4
11-50
2
1
2
1
1-10
1
1
0
0
-0-
8
5
5
2
(N = 12) (N = 8) (N - 9) (N = 8)
Besides enrollments, Voc Ed administrators were also asked to
report the amounts of JTPA funding their institutions were awarded to
deliver services in PY 1986. Table 12, below, reports total JTPA funds
administered by each category of Voc Ed institution. Totals are broken
out by funding type/title in Appendix D.
TABLE 12: INSTITUTIONS REPORTING PY f86 JTPA FUNDS
Funds ($)
RVTS
CTY/IND
COMPHS
CC
250,001-500,000
1
1
0
1
100,001-250,000
0
0
2
1
50,001-100,000
1
0
0
3
10,001-50,000
1
3
1
1
5,001-10,000
0
0
1
0
1-5,000
0
0
0
0
-0-
8
5
4
2
(N = 11) (N =9) (N = 8) (N = 8)
Discrepancies in reported SDA and Voc Ed enrollments — apparent in
Tables 8, 9 & 11 — are largely due to the lack of geographic congruency
between SDAs and Voc Ed institutions which responded to the survey. Voc
Ed responses indicated that in PY 1986 COMPHSs and CCs served many more
JTPA Title IIB Summer Youth and Eight Percent Grant funded clients than
Title IIA clients; RVTSs served a few more IIA and Eight Percent than
Summer Youth. Still, the majority of RVTS, COMPHS and CC respondents
reported zero enrollments in any JTPA category.
- 26 -
No CTY/IND schools reported serving Summer Youth or Eight Percent
Education Coordination clients, but three served clients funded from
Title IIA, the main JTPA allocation — and one of these administered over
$250,000 in Title IIA funded programs. CCs reported the widest range of
JTPA sources, including Title III (Displaced Worker) funds. One college
reported an additional source — Department of Public Welfare employment
training funds administered through the JTPA SDA. It is harder to draw
any conclusions about the overall patterns of JTPA funding totals across
categories of Voc Ed institutions (see Appendix D) .
Types of Services Provided
Employment training administrators were asked to indicate which
kinds of activities and services public education institutions provided
to their clients in PY 1986. They reported instructional and
administrative support; these are listed in Table 13.
TABLE 13: SDA REPORT OF SERVICES VOC ED MOST OFTEN PROVIDED JTPA
COMMUNITY COLLEGES
Personnel/Staff
Counseling
Space
Classroom occupational skills training
GED preparation
VOC-TECH SCHOOLS
Counseling
Personnel/Staff
Space
Classroom skills training
OTHER PUBLIC SECONDARY
Space
Equipment
Counseling
General Administration
Personnel/Staff
Classroom occupational skills training
Basic academic skills training
GED preparation
- 27 -
Voc Ed administrators were also asked to indicate which types of
activities or services their institutions provided to the SDA/PIC in PY
1986 and Summer 1986. They reported providing a considerably wider
range of services than the SDAs reported receiving from them. Only the
most frequently reported are listed here in Table 14. For a detailed
breakout of services by kind of institution see Appendix E.
TABLE 14: VOC ED REPORT OF SERVICES MOST OFTEN PROVIDED TO JTPA
COMMUNITY COLLEGES
General administration
Referrals
Space
Equipment
Personnel/Staff
Intake/Vocational assessment
Classroom occupational skills training
Basis academic skills training
GED preparation
Bilingual educational training
VOC-TECH SCHOOLS
General administration
Space
Personnel/Staff
Job Development
Equipment
Referrals
Tracking/Follow-up
Counseling
Classroom occupational skill training
Vocational exploration
Employ ability/ Job readiness training
OTHER PUBLIC SECONDARY
Personnel/Staff
Credit
Referrals
Intake/Vocational assessment
Classroom occupational skills training
Vocational exploration
Basic academic skills training
Employability/Job readiness training
- 28 -
Contract Modes
SDA and Voc Ed administrators were also asked to identify the
contracting modes they use to coordinate with the other sector, and
which of these they find MOST and LEAST satisfactory. Table 15 charts
percentages of respondents who reported using each of six types of
contracting in PY 1986.
TABLE 15: INSTITUTIONS IN EACH CONTRACT MODE
Contract type SDA CC RVTS CTY/IND COMPHS
RFP 63% 88% 40% 22% 50%
Purchase/Sell 63% 38% 40% 44% 13%
Program slots
Class-size training
Customized training
for employers
Joint RFP development
Programs for School
students during or
after hours
(N=8) (N=8) (N=10) (N=9) (N=8)
(Percentages add to more than 100 because of multiple responses)
SDAs identified precisely the modes they most frequently
utilize — RFPs, Purchasing 'Slots' and, somewhat less, contracting for
class-sized and in-school training — as their preferred modes of
contracting. Only one SDA indicated a least satisfactory mode: joint
RFP development. Voc Ed contracting preferences and dislikes were less
clear, and too few institutions commented to create discernable patterns
across different types of institutions. But, it is clear that current
contracting practices reflect Voc Ed preferences much less than they
reflect SDA preferences. The most common Voc Ed preferences were for
selling slots and conducting class-size training. Two Voc Ed
50%
38%
10%
0%
13%
0%
25%
10%
0%
13%
25%
38%
30%
0%
13%
38%
12%
30%
11%
38%
- 29 -
institutions found RFP response the most satisfactory mode, but three
others identified this as least satisfactory. One institution found
joint RFP development most satisfactory and one found it least.
Customized training was judged the least satisfactory mode by two Voc Ed
institutions.
JTPA Performance Standards and Client Needs
Voc Ed institutions rated their success in meeting JTPA
performance standards considerable higher than SDAs rated it. SDAs, on
the average, rated Voc Ed more than moderately successful in meeting
performance standards (3.2 on a scale of one to five) while most Voc Ed
institutions rated their performance as quite successful — above four.
TABLE 16: VOC ED SUCCESS MEETING JTPA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1 (Not at all) - 5 (Very)
Sector X N
SDA 3.2 7
COMPHS 4.7 6
CC 4.6 7
RVTS 4.1 8
CTY/IND 3.7 6
SDAs and Voc Ed institutions were also asked to rate the extent to
which programs offered at local Voc Ed institutions meet the need of
JTPA clients. Again, all Voc Ed sectors perceived their programs as
considerably more responsive or potentially responsive for meeting JTPA
client needs than did SDAs. SDAs rated programs offered by
Community -Based Organizations as more effective for meeting client needs
than any of the Voc Ed sectors, at 4.0.
cc
3.4
Voc-Tech
3.1
- RVTS
—
- CTY/IND
—
COMPHS
3.0
CBO
4.0
- 30 -
TABLE 17: VOC ED SUCCESS MEETING JTPA CLIENT NEEDS
1 (Not at all) - 5 (Very)
Institution SDA X VOC ED X
4.5
4.0
4.5
3.7
Overall, SDAs rated Voc Ed institutions' effectiveness in meeting
JTPA performance standards and local client needs approximately the
same — slightly above average. Among RVTSs, COMPHSs, and CTY/INDs,
schools assessed their success in meeting performance standards and their
effectiveness in meeting local client needs differently. COMPHSs judged
that they meet performance standards better than client needs, while
CTY/IND schools determined the opposite.
Voc Ed Effectiveness with Specific Services and JTPA Clients
SERVICE DELIVERY AREA OPINIONS:
SDAs and Voc Ed sectors were also asked to comment on what kinds of
services they have found public Voc Ed institutions to deliver MOST or
LEAST successfully and which JTPA client populations they MOST or LEAST
effectively serve. Slightly more than half of the SDA respondents
offered opinions on this topic. Two SDAs listed "training" as what Voc
Ed does most effectively, while one listed "education and training" and
two specified "education, not training," including pre-vocational, GED
preparation and academic remediation. Only one SDA cited a least
successful Voc Ed activity, stating that Voc Ed institutions have
insufficient funding for support services.
- 31 -
Three SDAs specified youth or in-school youth as the population Voc
Ed serves most effectively. Although one SDA stated that Voc Ed
effectively serves AFDC recipients, two others disagreed. They expressed
the opinion that Voc Ed effectively serves only the most skilled JTPA
clients and is poorly structured to meet the needs of traditional JTPA
client groups: welfare mothers and the least skilled.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE OPINIONS:
Voc Ed institutions listed a much wider variety of services they
deliver effectively, and most described a greater diversity of client
populations they serve or could serve well. Areas of strength commonly
cited by CCs include: academic remediation and GED/adult basic
education, long and short-term skill training and counseling. One CC
stated that it was best suited to provide short-term training, while
another stated long-term. Several colleges listed specific skill areas;
a few added job development and placement, support services or workplace
literacy. Six of eight CCs stated that they can effectively serve all
adult populations, including displaced workers and homemakers, single
parents, AFDC recipients, disabled, limited English proficient, youth or
criminal offenders. One suburban CC stated that it has difficulty
serving any JTPA populations because of transportation problems. Only
one CC expressed the opinion that it best serves employed persons seeking
to upgrade their skills.
REGIONAL VOC-TECH SCHOOL OPINIONS:
Thirteen of 16 RVTS respondents commented on services they deliver
and clients they serve effectively. Five RVTSs stated that they can
effectively deliver all needed services, including short or long-term
skills and employability training, education, support and counseling.
- 32 -
Five others emphasized their capacity to deliver skills training
components, either short or long-term. Two others focused on short-term
training/retraining for adults, but included counseling, support,
placement and follow-up services. One RVTS emphasized its capacity to
deliver educational services, including literacy and ESL. The two RVTSs
which commented on services they are least capable of delivering cited
on-the-job/ follow-up support and childcare.
Most RVTS respondents expressed the opinion that they can serve, or
have served, every target group within the JTPA client population,
including youth and adults, dropouts and the unemployed. Only two
respondents identified populations they believe their institutions serve
least well: for one RVTS it is those over age 21, and for the other, it
is those with low basic skills.
CITY AND INDEPENDENT VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS OPINIONS:
Eight of 10 CTY/IND respondents emphasized their capacity to offer
short and long-term skill training programs — supported by vocational
assessment, counseling, and job search — in a range of skill areas. One
characterized this as a "very comprehensive package of services."
Another institution currently offers only one-year skill training
programs, but is seeking ways to integrate mid-year skill training
programs .
Regarding populations, more than half of CTY/IND respondents stated
that they cannot effectively serve individuals who are illiterate or with
academic skills below the fourth grade level, or whose command of English
is limited. Similarly, one institution stated that JTPA clients must be
able to meet each department's minimal academic standards. Two City
Vocational Schools expressed the opinion that they can serve any JTPA
population. Conversely, one did not believe they should be serving JTPA
clients, but should focus on high school students.
- 33 -
COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL OPINIONS:
COMPHS responses were more divided on perceptions of services
delivered effectively. Half the respondents emphasized their capacity to
deliver short or long-term skill training, including counseling and
academic supports. Several respondents focused on specific skill areas
or formats: vocational exploration or summer youth programs. The other
half emphasized their capacity to meet academic support and remediation,
career awareness, guidance. There was no agreement on populations COMPHs
most effectively serve. Two respondents focused on students and out-of
school youth motivated to pursue GEDs, while two others believed their
institutions are most effective with underemployed and disadvantaged
working adults. Finally, two schools stated that they effectively serve
a wide range of displaced and disadvantaged youth and adult populations.
Needed Changes: SPA and Voc Ed Perspectives
All respondents were asked to comment on changes they believed Voc
Ed institutions need to make to better serve JTPA clients. SDA
suggestions centered on four themes:
1) need for Voc Ed to view itself in a broader sense as serving
the whole community, not just youth, and to recruit and serve
more clients in need of rememdiation;
2) need to expand the hours programs are available and to develop
open-entry/open-exit and short term programing on a year-round
basis;
3) need to develop more job and apprenticeship placement capacity
and to gear training more to employment;
4) need to coordinate more with the JTPA system at the
planning stages.
- 34 -
Relatively few of the Voc Ed respondents specified changes they
would like their institutions to undertake to develop their capacity to
serve JTPA clients. The majority feel that they have developed
considerable, and often unused, capacity to serve JTPA clients and that
their staff is prepared to do so. Or, they believe they are already
doing a good job — as one RVTS put it, "we are constantly changing our
approach to better adapt to all client population needs."
Of the changes that were suggested, many focused on the need for
more resources to work with JTPA: staff time, space to run JTPA training
during prime hours; more and continuous funding, preferably on a 2-3 year
basis rather than RFP response. Other comments emphasized increased
communication between JTPA planning and decision making. Voc Ed
respondents also saw increasing utilization of schools and colleges to
provide training services as key. One COMPHS respondent stated that
performance-based contracts and standards must be clarified to facilitate
Voc Ed participation.
However, two CCs, one RVTS and three CTY/IND schools identified
changes they believe their institutions could make to increase their
effectiveness in serving JTPA clients. One CC stated that it needed to
improve coordination with the local RVTS to be able to provide additional
training services. Another cited a need to make more pre-vocational and
remedial basic education services available (corresponding to the first
SDA theme) . A RVTS stated that it needs to expand a recently developed
capacity to deliver literacy training and to make this a model for other
services. A City Vocational School emphasized that it must continue to
cultivate private industry's willingness to work with eligible JTPA
populations. Another stated that it needs to develop programs that can
operate during the school year. Similarly, a third hopes to admit adults
into daytime training programs.
- 35 -
Comparative View: Voc Ed Mission and JTPA Service Delivery
Clearly, each Voc Ed administrator's perception of whether his or
her institution needs to change to serve JTPA clients, and of what
changes may be needed, reflects the institution's previous commitment to
serving these populations. It must also be emphasized that the summary
above does not take into account the specifics of local JTPA/Voc Ed
coordination relationships. Even so, an underlying conflict seems
clear. SDA suggestions for Voc Ed changes rest on a redefined Voc Ed
mission to serve as a year-round community resource, with more emphasis
on job training and placement. However, few SDAs seem to acknowledge the
constraints Voc Ed faces in fulfilling this mission, even where they
agree. Voc Ed comments here and in Section A indicate that many schools
and CCs are already working, or are willing to work, to incorporate this
mission; others are not. Regardless of the extent of their willingness
to serve JTPA clients, vocational administrators face constraints on
available resources and staff and on institutional flexibility as they
struggle to find a new balance in redefining their own institutions'
education and training mission.
Eight Percent Grant Impact on Coordination
The JTPA Eight Percent Education Coordination Grant is one
regulatory lever built into the Act which seeks to promote Voc Ed/JTPA
coordination at the local level. Massachusetts is one of the few states
in which the Eight Percent funding is not administered by the state
education agency. Rather, Eight Percent administrative money is split
between EOEA and DOE, where it funds state and regional level Employment
Training and Education specialists. The Youth Coordinating Council
(YCC) , an interagency group operating under the authority of the
- 36 -
inoperative State Job Training Coordination Council (SJTCC) , determined
PY '85 and PY '86 Eight Percent funding priorities. It allocated funding
based on responses to RFPs which heavily emphasized collaborative
planning between schools and SDAs. The YCC developed RFP guidelines and
evaluated proposals submitted.
Given that the YCC and OTEP have reported on both Eight Percent
procedures and outcomes, this study will not evaluate these. Although
the Eight Percent process is an important tool for promoting specific
kinds of collaborative activities with a small piece of JTPA funds, it is
less central to the question of how effectively Voc Ed/JTPA coordination
operates at a systemic level. Furthermore, Eight Percent grants fund
activities to schools in general, not specifically Voc Ed schools (unlike
CETA's six percent Voc Ed coordination fund). This local survey posed
only two questions about the Eight Percent Education Coordination fund to
SDAs and Voc Ed institutions in order to measure the extent of
involvement and local perceptions of the impact of Eight Percent funds on
overall coordination. Table 18 illustrates SDA and school/college
participation in Eight Percent funded activities. It lists the
percentage of institutions in each category — including SDAs — which
applied for, and were awarded, Eight Percent coordination funds.
TABLE 18: EIGHT PERCENT FUNDS IN PY '85 & PY '86
Sector
% Appli
ed
% Awarded
N
SDA
100%
88%
8
CC
86%
71%
7
RVTS
23%
15%
13
CTY/IND
10%
10%
10
COMPHS
20%
10%
10
- 37 -
All the SDA respondents applied for Eight Percent funding in one of
two previous years, and all but one of these applicants were awarded
funds. Similary, all but one CC respondent has applied for Eight Percent
funds, and all but one of the CC applicants was awarded funds. SDA
respondents reported collaborating mostly with public school districts,
area high schools and CCs. Only one reported working with a RVTS (as one
among 10 high schools) . These Eight Percent efforts focused on dropout
prevention and serving at-risk-youth, offering literacy, basic education
and GED preparation services to out-of -school youth.
It should be noted that Eight Percent proposals required
collaboration between SDAs and at least one eduational institution. In
JTPA's first year, they also required SDA applicants to establish
Education Committees under local PIC Boards, and many proposals were
generated in these committees. As will be discussed in Section D, many
of these original Eight Percent committees have been institutionalized
and some have taken on broader planning and advising functions.
Voc Ed high schools participated in applying for Eight Percent
funding much less often than CCs. Only three of thirteen RVTS and one of
10 CTY/IND respondents had applied. Two of the three RVTS applicants
were awarded funding, as was the one CTY/IND applicant.
Two of 10 COMPHSs participated in Eight Percent applications, and
one of these was funded (although it is not clear that Chapter 74
programs were involved in this case) .
It is hardly surprising that SDAs and CCs rated the Eight Percent
coordination funding most positively as a force for promoting overall
systemic coordination. RVTSs and CTY/IND schools rated it fairly
negatively, while the COMPHSs surveyed rated it as neutral.
- 38 -
TABLE 19: EIGHT PERCENT FUND IMPACT ON LOCAL COORDINATION QUALITY
1 (Negative) - 5 (Positive)
Sector X
SDA 4 . 2
CC 4.0
COMPHS 3 . 0
RVTS 2 . 3
CTY/IND 2 . 3
Respondents from all sectors were given the opportunity to suggest
improvements in Eight Percent planning or distribution procedures. SDA
suggestions focused on three areas. First, paperwork and documentation
was described as burdensome for schools; streamlining it was a stated
priority (the Commonwealth Futures effort to develop a single planning
document and funding application was cited) . Second, several SDAs felt
the Eight Percent RFP process was too ambiguous for a collaborative
working group to respond to; criteria should be clearer. A third stream
of comments advocated more fundamental change in the process, with part
of the Eight Percent funding distributed by allocation to all SDAs with
the purpose of promoting the development of joint JTPA/Voc Ed Programs.
Voc Ed suggestions began with the need to make the opportunity to
apply for Eight Percent funding more generally known. Several
institutions stated that they had not heard about it. This ignorance was
perceived as the result of gaps between state and local communication, as
well as JTPA/Voc Ed communication at the local level. Several
respondents commented that in their experience the process was "too
political" or skewed geographically or in favor of comprehensive school
districts. They suggested mandating coordination with Voc Ed in the RFPs
or giving control of the Eight Percent funding allocation to DOE.
- 39 -
A RVTS that had administered Eight Percent funding offered three
very specific suggestions:
1. More direct involvement of schools and colleges in the
application process;
2. Clarification of the importance of using Eight Percent funding
to promote general coordination, as well as delivering direct
services to targeted populations (dropouts, illiterates) ;
3. More standardization of eligibility and management information
with other systems and funded options.
A COMPHS with Eight Percent funded programs stated that
"administrative and contractual arrangements were working well — no major
recommendations for improvements."
- 40 -
SECTION C: PLANNING INPUT AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE
This section examines how SDAs and Voc Ed institutions utilized
channels available to them for exchanging information and coordinating
planning locally. Some of the local level practices surveyed were, in
fact, mandated in JTPA and the Perkins Act specifically to promote
coordination. Findings on the following seven types of coordination
practices are presented and discussed in turn.
SDA Review of local Voc Ed institutions' application for
Perkins funds and the extent to which this is perceived
as promoting effective coordination.
School and College opportunities to review annual local
JTPA plans and the extent of their participation in the
SDA/PIC planning process.
School, College and or DOE provision to PICs of listings
for all Perkins funded programs at the local level.
Inclusion of schools and colleges on PIC mailing lists
for notification about meetings, RFPs, etc.
Assignment of staff people charged with JTPA/Voc Ed
coordination responsibilities.
Institutional criteria articulating coordination goals.
- Availability and utilization of technical assistance for
coordination from DOE and OTEP.
SDA/PIC Review of Applications for Perkins Funds
SDAs were asked to what extent their SDA/PIC reviewed local Voc Ed
institutions' applications for federal Voc Ed (Perkins) funds in PY '86.
Voc Ed institutions were asked to judge the extent to which the local
SDA/PIC reviewed its Perkins applications. All sectors were asked to
offer their opinion on the extent to which this mandated review has
promoted useful local coordination. Table 20 illustrates the findings.
- 41 -
TABLE 20: PERKINS APPLICATION REVIEW & COORDINATION PROMOTION BY PICs
1 (Not at all) - 5 (Extensively)
Sector
Review
X
Promotion X
__N
SDA
2.1
2.0
8
cc
3.3
2.0
8
CTY/IND
3.2
1.9
9
COMPHS
3.2
2.5
10
RVTS
1.7
1.6
14
Fully 50% of the SDA respondents stated that their PIC did not
review Voc Ed institutions' Perkins applications at all. Accordingly,
they judged the review not at all useful for promoting coordination. In
both cases, the mean rating was negative — around two. Given that Perkins
applications cannot be funded without a PIC signature, it seems that the
mandated 'review' is most often a 'signing off.' Similarly, all Voc Ed
sectors, except RVTSs (1.7), rated the extent of review as slightly
better than neutral (3.2-3.3). Yet, they uniformly judged it to be a
very weak tool for promoting coordination (1.6-2.5).
School/College Review of Local JTPA Plan
There is no parallel mandate in JTPA specifically requiring Voc Ed
review of local SDA/PICs' annual job training plan, although general
public review is mandated. This imbalance is mirrored in state level
regulations. The SJTCC must comment on the biennial state input into the
development of the Governor's JTPA Coordination and Special Services
Plan. Even so, because dialogue is fundamental for any kind of
coordination, this survey asked the SDA and Voc Ed sectors whether local
Voc Ed institutions are provided opportunities for input, or to review or
comment on the annual SDA/PIC plan. All sectors were also asked whether
local Voc Ed institutions had, in fact, commented regularly on these
plans.
- 42 -
One hundred percent of SDAs surveyed reported that Voc Ed
institutions were offered opportunities for review or comment on local
JTPA plans. Thirty-eight percent of SDAs reported that Voc Ed
institutions commented regularly; 50% stated that Voc Ed did not comment
regularly, and 12% did not know. Voc Ed responses to the same questions
are reported below in Table 21.
TABLE 21: VOC ED PARTICIPATION IN PIC ANNUAL PLAN
Opportunity
to Comment
Comment Regularly
Sector
Yes
No
Don
't know
Yes
No
Don
't Know
N
CC
RVTS
CTY/IND
COMPHS
56%
40%
30%
20%
44%
57%
70%
80%
7%
44%
27%
30%
20%
56%
67%
70%
80%
7%
9
15
10
10
An evident gap exists between SDAs' belief that they provide Voc Ed
institutions with opportunities to review annual employment training
plans and many Voc Ed institutions' perception that they are not afforded
such opportunities. Only in the CC sector were a majority of respondents
aware of opportunities to comment on the JTPA plans. One possible
explanation for this difference lies in the nature of the local review
built into the JTPA planning process. In many cases, there is a period
during which the plan is available for general public review; a public
meeting may be held. This does not, however, specifically target Voc Ed
institutions in the same way the Perkins review solicits input from JTPA,
and it apparently fails to reach or engage a large number of schools and
colleges.
Voc Ed administrators were also asked to rate how actively their
institutions participate in the overall process of employment training
planning for their area (rated on a scale of one to five, from not at all
to extensively) . Table 22 charts the results.
- 43 -
TABLE 22: VOC INSTITUTION PARTICIPATION IN JTPA PLANNING
1 (Not at all) - 5 (Extensive)
Sector X N
CC 3.0 8
RVTS 2.4 14
CTY/IND 2.1 10
COMPHS 2.1 10
CCs also rated their institutions' general level of participation
in local JTPA planning higher than did the other Voc Ed sectors, although
it was still moderate (3.0). It is interesting that respondents from
RVTSs, CTY/INDS, and COMPHSs judged their institutions to be somewhat
active in SDA/PIC planning (2.1-2.4), even though few of them felt they
had opportunities for input into the formal planning document.
Provision to PICs of Perkins and Local Program Listings
The Perkins Voc Ed act mandates that the State Education Agency
make available to PICs listings of all Perkins funded programs. Of the
eight SDAs surveyed, 88% reported that they had not been provided such a
listing in PY 1986, and 12% said that they did not know. Respondents
were also asked whether local Voc Ed institutions had provided them with
a listing of locally available program offerings. Although not federally
mandated, such information would be essential for coordinating local
planning. A few SDAs reported that they had received local listings:
25% said yes, 63% said no and 12% said they don't know. Table 23 charts
Voc Ed responses to inquiries about whether their institution or DOE had
made Perkins and/or local program listings available to the PICs.
- 44 -
TABLE 23: PROVISION OF VOC ED PROGRAM LISTINGS TO PICs
Provided Perkins Listing
Provided Local
Listing
Sector
Yes
No
Don't know
Yes
No
Don't Know
N
CC
44%
23%
33%
44%
12%
44%
9
RVTS
13%
33%
54%
27%
40%
33%
15
CTY/IND
20%
50%
30%
40%
40%
20%
10
COMPHS
60%
10%
30%
50%
10%
40%
10
Voc Ed Institutions on PIC Mailing Lists
SDAs were asked how regularly they include RVTSs, CTY/INDS, COMPHSs
and CCs in their mailings to announce programs, meetings and
opportunities to bid on RFPs. Voc Ed respondents were asked how
regularly they believe their institutions are included in such PIC/SDA
mailings. Each sector's average rating of inclusion is reported in Table
24 on a scale of one to five, with five meaning always and one meaning
never.
TABLE 24
Sector
SDA
CC
RVTS
COMPHS
CTY/IND
REGULARITY OF VOC ED INCLUSION IN PIC MAILINGS
1 (Never) - 5 (Always)
X N
4.4 8
3.3 9
3.1 15
2.5 10
2.3 10
SDA Respondents reported that they nearly always include local Voc
Ed institutions in relevant mailings. CCs and RVTSs believe they were
included slightly more than half the time. COMPHSs and CTY/INDs believe
they were included less often. As in much of this section, responses in
Table 23 reflect perceptions of inclusion more than they illuminate
actual practice. The larger intention is to highlight where there is,
and is not, congruence between SDA and Voc Ed experiences of practices
intended to promote coordination.
- 45 -
Staff Responsible for JTPA/Voc Ed Coordination
All respondents were asked whether their institution had a
full-time (FT) or part-time (PT) staff person assigned central
responsibility for coordinating with the other sector. Very few
institutions reported having a staff person charged with working either
full or part-time on coordination. Voc Ed institutions, to varying
degrees, are making efforts to coordinate with the SDAs and the SDAs with
Voc Ed. However, the majority of institutions have not designated a
specific staff member as primarily responsible for the outreach,
dialogue, planning and implementation entailed. This survey did not try
to determine whether SDAs and Voc Ed institutions which assign staff have
higher levels of coordination than those which do not, or which comes
first, coordination staff or activities. Table 25 lists the percent of
full and part-time staff assigned to coordination.
TABLE 25: STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION
Sector
FT
PT
None
N
SDA
_<_
25%
75%
8
CC
33%
22%
45%
9
RVTS
20%
33%
47%
15
CTY/IND
20%
10%
70%
10
COMPHS
--
40%
50%
9
Institutional Criteria Articulating Coordination Goals
As a sixth indicator of institutional practices affecting
coordination, SDAs and Voc Ed institutions were asked whether they had
developed criteria or implementation plans for coordinating with the
other sector. SDAs were specifically asked whether their Local Service
Plan for PY '86-87 or their applications for Eight Percent Education
Coordination funds contained such criteria. State JTPA agencies or the
Governor's Coordination Plan can mandate that Local Plans contain
- 46 -
coordination criteria, and in fact, criteria for coordination were
required in Eight Percent applications. Because Perkins applications
need not contain coordination criteria, this questions was posed to Voc
Ed institutions more generally.
SDAs and Voc Ed institutions which responded affirmatively were
asked to assess:
- To what extent have criteria been implemented?
- To what extent has this improved Voc Ed /JTPA coordination?
Relatively few respondents stated that they had formulated
institutional criteria for coordination: One of eight SDAs, no CCs,
three of 15 RVTSs, one of 10 City Vocational Schools and two of 10
COMPHSs. One of the three RVTSs reported that its coordination criteria
have been proposed but not yet adopted; both COMPHSs reported that their
criteria were informal and not in writing. Only one of the institutions,
the SDA, felt that it had fairly thoroughly implemented its coordination
criteria (four on a scale of one to five), but that the effect on
coordination had been moderate (3) . The Voc Ed institutions with written
criteria rated both implementation and effect on coordination as moderate
(3). These findings are charted below in Table 26 on a scale of one
(thoroughly, greatly) to five (not at all) .
TABLE 26: COORDINATION CRITERIA
1 (thoroughly) - 5 (not at all)
Criteria Coordination
Sector Criteria Exist Implemented Improved N
SDA 14% 4 3 8
CC — — — 9
RVTS 20% 3 3 15
CTY/IND 10% 3 3 10
COMPHS 20% — — 10
- 47 -
Availability and Utilization of Technical Assistance
The final item surveyed under "Planning Input and Information
Exchange" is a less direct indicator of institutional coordination
practices. It also reflects state agency emphases in coordination and
availability of structures and linkages to offer technical assistance.
Respondents were asked "to what extent their SDA or Voc Ed institution
has benefited form state of regional technical assistance for
coordination from DOE and OTEP." Table 27, below, lists institutions'
assessment of how much they have benefited from technical assistance for
coordination provided by their own agency and by the other sector, on a
scale of one (not at all) to five (greatly) .
TABLE 27: BENEFIT FROM COORDINATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Sector DOE OTEP
5 4321X 54321XN
SDA — — 12% 25% 63% 1.5 12% 12% 39% 12% 25% 2.4 8
COMPHS 57% 11% 11% — 11% 3.8 12% 25% — 38% 25% 2.6 9
RVTS 29% 7% 36% 14%' 14% 3.4 — — 29% — 71% 1.6 14
CTY/IND 55% 11% 11% 11% 22% 3.4 — — 12% 12% 76% 1.4 9
CC 15% 28% 28% 28% — 3.3 — 14% 28% 14% 44% 2.1 7
Predictably, each sector reported having benefited most from
technical assistance provided by their own agency: SDAs from OTEP, Voc
Ed institutions from DOE. Among Voc Ed institutions, COMPHSs rated DOE
and OTEP assistance most highly (3.8-2.6). RVTSs, CTY/INDs and CCs felt
they had benefited more than moderately (3.3-3.4) from DOE assistance
and relatively little from OTEP (1.4-2.1). Although SDAs felt they
benefited more from OTEP technical assistance on coordination then from
DOE, they rated benefits from both sectors relatively low: OTEP - 2.4,
DOE - 1.5.
Respondents were asked to indicate further which of eight kinds of
technical assistance they had used or received from DOE and OTEP. Their
reports are indicated in Table 28.
- 48 -
TABLE 28: TYPES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
X denotes kinds of technical assistance reported
by more than 25% of respondents in the sector
X+ denotes kinds of technical assistance reported
by more than 50% of respondents in the sector.
TYPE
DOE Assistance
SDA
cc
RVTS
CTY
COMPHS
Planning
X
X+
X
x+
Plan Review
X
x+
X+
x+
x+
Access Funding
x+
x+
x+
x+
Evaluation
X
x+
X
x+
Enrollment &
Capacity Info
Labor Market
Information
Curriculum
Development
Special Needs
X X
X X
X x+ x+
x+
x+
x+
x+
OTEP Assistance
SDA CC RVTS CTY COMPHS
X+
x+
X X
x+
X x
x+
In summary, SDA and Voc Ed respondents offered a mixed report on
the extent to which they utilized potential communication channels and
practices mandated for improving coordination. In general, it does not
appear that formal planning mandates actually promote coordination in
most locales. Neither the mandate for SDA review of Voc Ed Perkins
funding applications nor for SDAs to be provided lists of all Perkins
funded programs are perceived as very helpful currently. Furthermore,
there is a gap between SDAs' belief that they are including Voc Ed in
plan review and mailings and Voc Ed institutions' perception that they
are not usually included. Yet, only a few SDAs, schools or colleges
reported that they had undertaken a more proactive approach, adopting
institutional criteria or identifying staff specifically responsible for
coordination. Such institutional commitments to coordinate are
constrained by limits on resources and by competing priorities.
- 49 -
SECTION D: MEMBERSHIP
This segment of the study looked at exchange of members between
SDA/PIC and Voc Ed schools and colleges on three kinds of bodies: PIC
Boards, Pic Education Sub-Committees and School/College Vocational
Advisory Committees.
Of these, public education representation on the PIC is the only
exchange mandated at the local level; even this law does not stipulate
that representatives must be from Voc Ed or any particular sector of
education. Membership exchange offers one potentially effective vehicle
for ongoing communication between SDAs and Voc Ed institutions and can
also provide less paper-driven, more responsive channels for input into
planning than some described in Section C
PIC Membership
SDA REPORTS:
Among the eight SDAs participating in the study, the average number
of education representatives on PIC Boards was 4.4 (ranging from two to
seven) . Because some PICs include representatives of local private
colleges and universities, the number of public education
representatives on the PIC averaged 3.8.
Total PIC Membership ranged from 21 to 44, averaging 29. Total
public sector representation on PICs ranged between 16% and 45%; JTPA
requires that PICs have a private sector majority. Table 29 lists
public education membership reported by eight SDAs.
- 50 -
TABLE 29: SPA REPORTS ON PIC MEMBERSHIP
# PIC Members CC RVTS, CTY/IND COMPHS
-0- 14 2
-1- 7 2 2
-2- 0 2 1
-3- 0 0 3
All PICs but one reported having a CC President or designee as a
Board member. Half reported a Vocational or Voc-Tech School
administrator (usually Director or Superintendent Director) , and half of
these (2) had more than one representative from a secondary vocational
school. All PICs have at least one non-vocational secondary
superintendent sitting as a member, and many have more than one.
Information on procedures for nomination and replacement of education
representatives to PICs was also requested. For almost every PIC,
nominations and replacements are made through the PIC itself. Often
outgoing education representatives are asked to recommend their own
replacement — usually from the same institution — or other PIC members are
asked for recommendations. It is also common that the Mayor of the lead
city in the SDA is asked to choose or approve an education
representative .
PIC Membership
VOC ED REPORTS:
Voc Ed respondents were asked whether they or any other
representative of their institutions were PIC members. Although there
was not geographic congruence between SDA and Voc Ed respondents,
overall results corresponded: nearly all CCs reported PIC membership.
Not quite half of RVTS respondents are on the PIC, while only two of 10
CTY/IND respondents are (this distinction was not made in SDA data) .
Table 30 lists Voc Ed reports on PIC membership.
- 51 -
TABLE
3C
%
I: VOC ED
REPORTS ON PIC MEMBERSHIP
N
Sector
With
Membership
Title
CC
88%
President/Designee
8
RVTS
40%
Supt . /Director
15
COMPHS
30%
Superintendent
Director Occ Ed
10
CTY/IND
20%
Superintendent
10
Voc Ed institutions were also asked if they had ever attempted to
join the PIC and what the outcome of the attempt had been. Almost every
Voc Ed respondent reported that he/she had made at least one attempt to
place a member on the PIC; about half of the outcomes had resulted in
membership. Negative outcomes to seeking PIC membership were very often
experienced by schools as being ignored or rebuffed; some instances were
attributed to another institution's or sector's favored status. Yet,
schools not represented on a PIC reported a very low instance of
maintaining regular contact with education representatives who sit on
the PIC.
Clearly, PIC Membership is viewed by schools and colleges as the
best potential channel for communicating with SDAs and offering input
into the local employment training system. Although a few institutions
reported offering assistance to committees or specific programs (with
varying degrees of success) , many saw failure to gain membership on the
PIC as a frustrating dead end to their efforts to participate in
planning. One view expressed was that PICs should seek more members
from Voc Ed sectors. Certainly, narrow procedures for filling
membership vacancies should be examined.
- 52 -
But to be functional, PICs average under 3 0 total members, and
JTPA mandates that the majority of these members must be from the
private sector and that a range of other public interests be
represented. Survey results indicated that PICs currently average fewer
than four public education members, and few vacancies arise. Relying on
appointment of a PIC Board member to provide an institution's primary
channel for input into employment training planning seems unnecessarily
restrictive.
Education Committees and Sub-Committees
Five of eight SDAs (63%) surveyed reported that their PIC has
established a Committee or Sub-Committee charged specifically with
coordinating Educational Issues. SDAs listed Education Committees,
Education Coordination/Linkage Committees, or Agency Liaison
Sub-Committees as the focus for these activities. One SDA reported that
its Planning Committee included education representatives and carries
out coordinating functions. Most of these bodies include educators who
are representatives from community-based organizations and community
agencies. Some are standing committees and meet monthly or bimonthly,
while others meet only two to four times each year. Many of these
bodies were orginally constituted to plan for the first Eight Percent
Education Coordination grant proposals in 1985.
Only about one-third of secondary Voc Ed administrators reported
committee participation, while more than half of CCs were invloved.
Table 31 illustrates Voc Ed involvement in PIC committees.
-53 -
TABLE 31: VOC ED INSTITUTIONS ON PIC COMMITTEES
Sector % Participating Participant Titles N
CC 56% Director Institutional Dev./ 9
Dean Continuing Education
RVTS 27% Superintendent/Director 15
COMPHS 30% Super intendent/Dir. Occ. Ed./ 10
Director Federal Programs
CTY/IND 30% Superintendent 10
Within these limits, a variety of patterns for participating in
such committees was indicated, ranging from very active to largely pro
forma involvement. Some institutions reported having several staff
members serving on different PIC groups and committees. In particular,
schools and colleges with members on the PICs usually also had at least
one other staff person serving as a permanent committee member. A
number of institutions also work with PIC sponsored Business-Education
Task Forces or Advisory Groups.
A few schools reported continuous involvement at the committee
level both in planning and overseeing programs, particularly
school-based and business partnerships. At the proactive end, one
Occupational Education Director at a COMPHS, who is a PIC Member, is
currently chairing a group "to provide more . information on Voc Ed and CC
perspectives on JTPA and experience with the RFP process." Most Voc Ed
institutions, however, participate on a more periodic or "as-needed"
basis — for example, to respond to Eight Percent fund RFPs or to plan
Summer Youth programs. Voc Ed institutions stated they had little input
into setting the agenda. Some also expressed frustration that repeated
offers of Voc Ed resources and participation in planning were accepted
only rarely. A number of respondents viewed committees as pro forma,
serving primarily to fulfill state planning requirements, meeting only
- 54 -
at the last minute before proposals need to be submitted. Several
institutions cited this as a reason for declining invitations to
participate.
Some PIC education committees remain limited to their original
function, serving only as planning groups for Eight Percent funding
proposals or for specific programs serving in-school youth. While this
behavior may meet PIC needs, it is frustrating for those Voc Ed
institutions seeking broader input into planning. Yet, Education
committees, in some localities, have served as effective vehicles for
Voc Ed/JTPA coordination — as forums for regular dialogue and broader
education input into joint employment training planning. In areas where
there is mutual commitment to coordination, education committees seem to
be a key point of linkage between the two systems.
Vocational Advisory Committees
Vocational general and program advisory committees represent a
third existing forum for communication between the Voc Ed and JTPA
sectors at the local level. Given these committees' responsibilities
for advising on vocational program planning, they seem a particularly
direct channel for SDAs and PICs to learn about, and offer input into,
Voc Ed systems. Furthermore, in the past several years, DOE has devoted
considerable effort to working with these committees on improving their
effectiveness. Half of the eight SDA respondents reported that they are
represented on Voc Ed general or program advisory committees. Two are
on CC Voc Ed Advisory Boards, and one is on the General Advisory
Committee of a city vocational high school. One other SDA formed a
special group to advise a literacy program.
- 55 -
Nearly half of the CCs and RVTSs surveyed also had SDA or PIC
representation on their advisory bodies, while only 2 0% of COMPHSs and
10% of CTY/INDs in the sample reported PIC participation (See Table 32) .
TABLE 32: VOC ED ADVISORY COMMITTEES WITH PIC MEMBERS
Sector % With PIC Representation N
CC 43% 7
RVTS 47% 15
COMPHS 10% 10
CTY/IND 20% 10
- 56
SECTION E: BENEFITS AND COSTS OF COORDINATION
This study did not assume that coordination is necessarily a
wholly positive or desirable effort for the administrators and agencies
involved. The local survey asked SDA and Voc Ed respondents to identify
what the benefits and costs of attempted coordination have been for
their institution and to assess whether it has been worth the cost.
Nine potential benefits of coordination were adapted from the
National Center for Research in Vocational Education's survey
instrument. Participants were asked whether coordination efforts had
yielded specified benefits for their institutions and, where possible,
to describe those benefits. Table 3 3 lists the percentage of
respondents from SDAs and each Voc Ed sector who stated specific
benefits from coordination efforts.
TABLE 33: RESPONDENTS BENEFITING FROM COORDINATION
Benefits SDA CC RVTS CTY/IND COMPHS
Increased # participants
Increased funds
Increased staff quality
Increased service variety
Increased facilities
Reduced duplication
Increased recruitment
Curriculum design aid
Shared labor market infor
(N=7) (N=8) (N=13) (N=10) (N=8)
(percentages add to more than 100 because of multiple possible responses)
Many respondents reported that they had benefited from
coordination efforts, and some kinds of benefits were shared across
sectors. CCs reported the widest variety of benefits — including
29%
63%
38%
30%
38%
29%
63%
46%
20%
38%
0%
50%
23%
0%
38%
57%
63%
23%
0%
38%
29%
38%
8%
0%
12%
14%
38%
23%
20%
25%
43%
75%
38%
10%
50%
29%
25%
8%
0%
12%
14%
25%
31%
30%
25%
- 57 -
increased numbers of participants, increased recruitment and referral,
increased funding, staff and range of services— as well as the highest
percentage perceived benefits from coordination efforts. Approximately
half of the SDA administrators surveyed believe they have gained an
increased range of services and increased recruitment and cross referral
from coordination efforts. Several SDAs also reported increased numbers
of participants and increased funding, facilities and equipment, and
curriculum design assistance.
RVTS respondents focused on increased funding, number of
participants, and recruitment/referrals as primary benefits derived from
coordination. COMPHSs reported these same benefits, along with
increased staff and range of services. Clearly, respondents from the
CTY/IND sector have experienced minimal benefit from coordination — fewer
than other sectors.
Perceived benefits are by definition highly subjective, and it
cannot be assumed that participants seek from coordination only the
kinds of benefits they have experienced in the past. But, identifying
benefits and costs to each sector of coordination efforts is an
important prerequisite to developing 'win-win' local coordination
efforts. There was near unanimity across the sectors that, so far,
coordination costs have been few — mostly staff time — and have been worth
the effort. Only two CTY/IND participants cited specific costs, stating
that their previous attempts to coordinate were not worth the staff time
or the financial investment.
- 58 -
SECTION F: DESIRABILITY/FEASIBILITY
The last segment of the survey questionnaire tried to move beyond
current perceptions and practices to look at possible avenues for state
policy initiatives to encourage and facilitate local-level
coordination. There were four policy-related questions. One question
sought to identify state and/or federal laws, regulations or policies
that impede coordination efforts. A second question solicted input from
SDA and Voc Ed administrators on how desirable and feasible it is to
expect extensive local Voc Ed/JTPA coordination in 10 possible areas of
activity. A third asked them to evaluate the potential effectiveness
for facilitating local coordination of 10 different kinds of state level
interventions. Finally, an open-ended question asked respondents to
state any comments, recommendations or observations on Voc Ed/JTPA
coordination efforts and efforts at coordination improvement.
State and Federal Impediments to Coordination
In addition to identifying perceptions and practices that
currently discourage local coordination, it seemed important to identify
the more intractable policy and regulatory barriers. In Section A,
differences in respective definitions of allowable services and
budgetary items emerged as one of the more discouraging factors for
nearly all sectors (Table 7) . Yet, policy and regulation did not emerge
as overwhelming or impossible to work around. Some respondents in each
sector identified specific regulatory or policy barriers to
coordination, although only in the SDA sector a majority of
administrators offered thoughts on these (88%) . Only one SDA commented
- 59 -
that it could not identify such barriers, since it "believes people must
work around regulations and find common concerns and issues and address
them to best meet client needs."
Fewer than half of the Voc Ed respondents pointed to specific
impediments from state and/or federal policy. Among CC, COMPHS and
CTY/IND respondents, between a third and a half identified regulatory or
policy barriers, and only one in each sector saw no such barriers.
Two-thirds of the RVTS sector answered the question on identifying legal
and regulatory barriers to coordination, but half of these responded
that none exist. Policy barriers identified by SDA respondents centered
on four factors:
1. JTPA eligibility requirements (particularly income) as
limiting the flexibility of JTPA programming;
2. differences in systems' goals and target populations that
make them less compatible;
3. complexities of both systems' regulations that make it
difficult to develop expertise in both;
4. JTPA performance standards, particularly cost limits and
required placement wages.
CCs also identified JTPA client eligibility requirements and
performance-based contracting as barriers. They also named the fact
that JTPA does not recognize enrollment in postsecondary programs as
positive termination, and the fact that DOE restricts college use of DOE
funds. One respondent pointed to "fragmentation of the education,
employment and training systems at the state agency level" as a major
obstacle, stating that "too many state agencies are involved; we need a
consolidation, reorganization."
- 60 -
RVTSs as well identified SDA/PIC performance standards
(particularly outcome measures that exclude postsecondary enrollment)
and JTPA's five percent administrative cap as major factors impeding
local coordination. Several RVTS administrators added to this list the
restrictions disallowing the use of JTPA funding as a match for Perkins
funds (even though Perkins can serve as a match for JTPA) . Two RVTS
respondents, as well as two COMPHS Occupational Directors, focused on
the concept of 'right of first refusal,1 which interprets JTPA as
allowing public education agencies first rights to JTPA service
delivery. Two administrators saw the problem as a need for
clarification or interpretation of this section of JTPA, while two
others defined it as "JTPA agency resistance" to these rights. Another
respondent included "the RFP process" as a barrier. Others commented
that "people and geographical boundaries" posed bigger problems than
laws and regulation.
CTY/IND and COMPHS responses focused on the Perkins matching
requirements as the main obstacle. One commented that "present
performance standards make better coordination difficult, not
impossible. "
Desirable and Feasible Local Coordination Activities
The local questionnaire solicited input from SDA and Voc Ed
administrators on the desirability and feasibility of expecting
extensive local coordination in 10 areas of activity which were adapted
from the survey instruments of the National Center's coordination
study. Respondents were asked to rate each listed area of coordinated
activity on a scale of one to five, ranging from not at all
desirable/feasible to very desirable/ feasible. "Don't Know" was also
- 61 -
offered as a possible response. Respondents were asked to differentiate
between desirability and feasibility.
The four activities each sector judged most desirable to
coordination at the local level are listed in Table 34. The four
highest rated activities are listed together here to illustrate the
extensive agreement that exists across SDAs and Voc Ed institutions on
what kinds of coordination ought to be issued at the local level.
Complete breakouts for each sector's ratings on the desirability of
coordinating activities locally are in Appendix F.
TABLE 34: MOST DESIRABLE LOCAL COORDINATION ACTIVITIES
1 (Not at all) - 5 (Very)
Sector Activity X
SPA
Sharing local labor market information 4.6
Reciprocal referral procedures for participants 4.5
Joint or reciprocal technical assistance 4.1
Joint funding of programs 3.6
CC
Reciprocal referral procedures for participants 4.6
Sharing local labor market information 4 . 4
Joint or reciprocal staff development 4 . 4
Joint or reciprocal technical assistance 4.4
RVTS
Sharing local labor market information 4.2
Reciprocal referral procedures for participants 4 . 2
Joint funding of programs 3 . 7
Joint or reciprocal technical assistance 3.6
CTY/IND
Sharing local labor market information 4 . 6
Joint preparation of local service plans 4.1
Reciprocal referral procedures for participants 4.0
Joint or reciprocal technical assistance 3.6
COMPHS
Joint funding of programs 4.7
Sharing local labor market information 4 . 6
Joint operation of programs 4.4
Joint or reciproal technical assistance 4.4
I
- 62 -
Even more than the motivational factors reported in Section A and
the benefits reported in Section D, these responses confirm that most
SDAs and Voc Ed institutions hold very similar agendas for local
coordination activities. Of the 10 activities listed, virtually all
sectors rated the same four activities as the most desirable for local
coordination. Similarly, nearly all respondents put the same two
activities, "joint intake and assessment procedures for participants"
and "joint program evaluation," at the bottom of their lists. It is
also notable that all sectors rated most of the 10 activities on the
positive end of the scale. SDAs ranked only one activity below three,
while Voc Ed rated all coordination activities as more desirable than
not. Certainly, these priorities are best analyzed in their local
context by the local Voc Ed institutions and employment training
agencies concerned.
The feasibility ratings for these same activities fell roughly in
the same rank order as desirability, with slightly lower ratings
overall. There were several activities for which respondents perceived
a discrepency in desirability and feasibility — always with the activity
rated less feasible than desirable.
No single activity had widely divergent desirability/feasibility
ratings across sectors. Reciprocal referral procedures was widely named
as one of the most desirable activities for local coordination. It was
rated on average considerably more desirable than feasible by CCs (4.6
and 3.3, respectively) and CTY/INDs (4.0 and 2.5, respectively). CCs
also viewed "Joint or Reciprocal Staff Development Activities" as more
desirable than feasible (4.4 and 3.0, respectively), while CTY/IND
schools saw a gap between desirability and feasibility of "Joint
Preparation of Local Services Plans" (4.1 and 2.6, respectively).
- 63 -
Value of Possible State Initiatives
A third policy oriented question asked respondents to evaluate
whether they felt each of 10 other possible state level interventions
would effectively facilitate local JTPA/Voc Ed coordination. (Response
choices were Yes, No, Don't Know.) The 10 interventions were drawn from
the National Center's survey instruments. There was space to write in
additional methods (as there was also in the previous question) , but
very few participants utilized it.
Four of the suggested state level actions were viewed by local
administrators as potentially very favorable for facilitating local
coordination. Although the question did not ask for ratings or
rankings, responses are grouped in Table 35 as Positive, Middle Range or
Negative, according to percentages of respondents who judged them
affirmatively.
Again, the value of this information is that it highlights the
convergence of opinion across sectors on the value of promoting local
level coordination of some commonly suggested state policy
interventions. Options rated least favorable were those involving major
bureaucratic or logistical changes: exchange or co-location of staff,
interagency committees, co-terminious planning districts'. Those rated
highest were more concrete or activity oriented: sharing labor market
planning information, technical assistance, interagency agreements, and
joint meetings. Most stated priorities for state actions mirror
priorities for local coordination list in Table 34. It is possible that
different priorities would emerge in different localities out of an
ongoing process of local level JTPA/Voc Ed dialogue.
- 64 -
TABLE 35: DESIRABILITY OF STATE ACTIVITIES
Activity
Percent Poi
sitive
Response
POSITIVE
SDA
CC
RVTS
CTY/IND
COMPHS
Sharing labor
88%
100%
79%
90%
89%
market information
Reciprocal technical
100%
89%
64%
90%
78%
assistance
Non financial inter-
88%
67%
93%
60%
56%
agency agreements
Joint staff meetings
50%
89%
79%
80%
89%
Joint service plans
63%
89%
71%
70%
44%
Financial agreements
75%
33%
71%
70%
56%
MIDDLE RANGE
Interagency Committee
50%
56%
64%
40%
67%
Co-terminous planning
50%
56%
57%
20%
44%
districts
NEGATIVE
Exchange of staff
Co-location of staff
38%
33%
7%
20%
33%
25%
22%
29%
30%
67%
Respondent Comments
This chapter has presented significant findings from the Council's
recent research on local perceptions and practices relating to JTPA/Voc
Ed coordination. In a final question, survey respondents were asked to
share additional comments, recommendations or observations on the
current state of Voc Ed/JTPA coordination or efforts to improve it.
Some representative comments are offered here to give the flavor of
general concerns about coordination, and as an appropriate close to this
chapter.
SDA COMMENTS:
I believe coordination of these efforts has improved over the
past few years. Employment and Training staff and Voc Ed
faculty must collaborate with each other and recognize that
they are all educators and their goals are the same — a
prepared and educated work force.
- 65 -
There is no information on Carl Perkins Vocational funding.
There should be a pool of Voc Ed money established that
allows every SDA to develop joint programs with Voc Ed by
putting up local JTPA dollars. This might promote the
development of joint Voc Ed/SDA training programs during
daytime hours, with existing resources targeted at Adult JTPA
and Welfare populations.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMMENTS:
Currently there is no coordination between state educational
agencies at this level, or within this area. JTPA funding has
been funded and is furnished locally through the same agencies
for years without much effort to coordinate and eliminate
unnecessary duplication.
To be honest, a big factor is the limited time staff have for
these coordination efforts. I believe in coordination, but if
you are carrying out a busy job, it's hard to always coordinate
with others as a highest priority.
REGIONAL VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL SCHOOL COMMENTS:
Voc Ed/JTPA coordination works very well (here) on a limited
basis due to financial constraints and the SDA's own skill
center. The RVTS is always ready to design and implement
retraining programs for the SDA as requested.
For the summer of 1987, we are a worksite for two students
and are operating a career exploratory component for 60-80
youth. This came about through personal contacts and was
arranged quite informally. We have both the capacity and the
willingness to provide slots during the regular day program.
Efforts to develop better coordination are just getting under-
way, as my appointment here was (just) effective.
We have not had opportunities to serve this type of partner-
ship. We would be interested in it.
Best current hope is the SCOVE sponsored Voc Ed plus Community
College plus JTPA planning. Need to create state incentives for
the process.
I believe there exists a lack of basic information within JTPA
agencies regarding vocational education, its purposes, resources
and capacity. Also, there does not appear to be willingness or
interest to pursue this information.
I feel we have different purposes. Our mission is Education,
their 's is training. I sense they want to operate as a separate
entity.
- 66 -
One RVTs included a list of specific administrative recommendations in
the final comments:
1. Voc Ed task force efforts have been very valuable.
2. Eight Percent money must be directed to coordination,
not direct service.
3. 'Literacy1 funds should be controlled by DOE, not JTPA.
4. Skills training programs at public Vocational facilities
should be allowed higher per student costs than non-skills
originated programs, both during the school year and in
the summer.
5. Each funded/written proposal for JTPA monies should be
allowed additional funds to cover the extensive fiscal
accounting requirements of JTPA/SDA/CC.
6. The 5% administrative CAP on proposals should be raised
to at least 15-20%.
7. 'Family of one' status should have more wide scope and
interpretation.
8. There should be no 'caps' on handicapped enrollment.
CITY AND INDEPENDENT VOCATIONAL SCHOOL COMMENTS:
The present system does not work very effectively, too many
vocational schools left out. Many of the key players have an
intellectual bias against Voc Ed while many adults lose out on
the good paying jobs in such areas as. . .printing, construction.
PIC/SDAs run their own programs. . .with no vocational components.
Collaborative efforts exclude Voc Ed by design and by philosophy.
1. Lessen the friction between DOE and OTEP (state agencies) ;
2. cite examples of where Voc Ed and JTPA are working;
3. provide technical assistance to help foster collaboration
between the PIC, SDA and School Department around
vocational training.
With shrinking funding, why run a skill center if programs are
available in vocational schools and space is available?
Duplication of effort and tying up funds that could service more.
In our SDA, I believe the educational training portion for the
most part can be done on an individual referral basis. This is
based on the fact that we do not have a great number of clients
with the same education needs; therefore it is better to refer
them to local community colleges, independent schools and public
vocational schools.
Voc Ed in a city school is geared for high school age students.
The needs are different.
- 67 -
COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL COMMENTS:
Where does a local comprehensive high school with six Chapter
74 programs fit?
We have a desire to participate in this program, but we all
have to get together.
Virtually no contact between JTPA at state, regional, or local
levels. Establish dialogue. Help educators — not create
bureaucratic red tape.
We have developed a comprehensive network of employers and
funding agencies; JTPA/SDA has been an equal partner in this
effort. . . an ideal relationship.
More and stronger representation on PIC by member of Voc Ed
community. Priority given to Voc Ed training sites with a
joint financial incentive. Need to acquaint Vocational
Education community with RFP process and differences in
language; i.e. pre-vocational to SDAs means remedial education
to vocational educators it means exploratory. Incentives for
SDA to stop using the same agencies as vendors... or the
training agencies they have developed in-house from years past.
In general, there need to be directives, incentives, and
increased communication to foster collaboration. SDAs in
general I feel have a negative feeling towards most public
school environments because they are dealing with clients
who have failed in that setting. Local employment plans
and goals for both agencies (SDA & Voc Ed) also need to
dove-tail to ensure joint activities.
There has been a long history of cooperation, interaction
and sharing of various resources between our District and the
SDA. This is based on mutual appreciation of the needs of the
economically disadvantaged, mutual trust and an understanding
of the limits and potential of each agency as they are
governed by State and Federal regulations.
- 68 -
CHAPTER TWO
REGIONAL LEVEL FINDINGS
As part of the study on coordination between the Voc Ed and
Employment Training systems in Massachusetts, seven regional agency
staff from education and employment training were interviewed between
July 31 and August 13, 1987. Interviews lasted from thirty to
seventy-five minutes and were conducted by telephone.
In talking about coordination, DOE regional Employment Training
and Education (ET & E) staff — who are attached to the Division of
Occupational Education — focused largely on Voc Ed coordination.
Whereas, OTEP regional managers spoke more often about coordination with
education in general, rather than identifying coordination issues
specific to Voc Ed. OTEP regional staff also expressed considerably
more optimism about the direction Voc Ed/Employment Training
coordination has been taking than all but one of the DOE regional staff.
Changes: CETA to JTPA
Of the three DOE regional staff who had also worked under CETA
(Comprehensive Employment and Training Act) , only one felt that
coordination had improved substantially — that present working
relationships were building on previous 'learning experiences' of trying
to coordinate with the other system. The other two were 'very
disappointed' in the extent of coordination that was taking place under
JTPA. The one OTEP regional manager who had worked at the program level
under CETA characterized Voc Ed coordination under JTPA as 'definitely
higher. '
- 69 -
Agency Role in Promoting Coordination
When asked about their own roles in promoting coordination at the
local level, DOE regional ET & E specialists described their primary
role as developing a personal connection to both the Voc Ed community
and the JTPA system. A number of the coordination activities they
undertook involved educating Voc Ed administrators about JTPA and the
PIC, including how they can serve on the PIC or its sub-committees,
access and share resources, participate in planning and advising on
service to specific populations, and market their programs and services
to the PIC. Two of the four DOE regional staff stated that their
coordination work emphasized 'broad-based inclusion in local planning'
more than formal exchange of members. The largest part of these efforts
occurred at the time of JTPA enactment, although some have continued
periodically. A second major kind of DOE regional staff activity was
aimed at building relationships with SDA staff. One interviewee made
the point that, to be effective, DOE staff must be viewed by the SDAs as
the primary link with the Vocational Community and as a reliable channel
for information on Voc Ed.
OTEP regional managers saw their own role in coordination less as
establishing personal relationships between SDAs and Voc Ed and more as
channels for state communication and feedback to SDAs. OTEP regional
staff described coordination roles that included: passing on
information about federal coordination mandates; state policy incentives
& planning requirements; and monitoring performance, with particular
emphasis on PIC membership and Eight Percent RFP requirements.
- 70 -
Agency Emphases on Coordination
Interviewees were asked how much emphasis they believed their
agencies place on coordination, whether they think this emphasis is
sufficient, and to what extent the agency plan could serve as a
framework for coordination. A wide range of opinions was expressed by
regional staff in both agencies, from the belief of some DOE and OTEP
respondents that their own agency puts tremendous emphasis on state
level coordination efforts and ought to continue to do so to the belief
that this is either a futile (DOE) or an ineffective (OTEP) means to
achieve local level coordination.
One DOE regional ET & E specialist felt that DOE, in recent years,
has placed a 'tremendous emphasis' on coordination, citing increased DOE
funding available for coordination and staff time devoted to working out
coordinated programs and funding modes, especially for target
populations such as displaced workers (former Postsecondary Bureau
Director Phyllis Lary's work in particular was noted). A second
respondent believed DOE was doing all it could to encourage
coordination, but that 'turf issues' and lack of OTEP commitment block
it. This individual stated that even where DOE tries to promote
coordination, the regional staff is "by-passed and blocked within her or
his own department" and not recognized as valuable for planning
coordination or for making it work.
Two other DOE regional interviewees believed that regional staff
and local educators receive mixed signals on coordination from the state
level. Although some local agencies have made commitments to JTPA/Voc
Ed coordination, to be systemic a state level commitment must be
initiated. In this view, locals will comply with state mandates if the
definition of coordination is clearer, if technical assistance and funds
are made available, and if planning efforts identify and integrate the
- 71 -
people who can actually implement coordination in both systems. One
respondent felt education should be a higher priority in the Governor's
JTPA Coordination Plan, while DOE planning should take the lead on
literacy and dropouts. However, another regional DOE staff person was
doubtful that agency plans are the best frameworks for coordination;
efforts should focus more on educating both communities on mutual needs
and requirements.
OTEP regional staff all agreed that coordination is a high agency
priority, but differed on the extent to which they believe their state
agency plan can or should promote local coordination. One held that
OTEP's coordination effort has already grown from an initial focus on
Eight Percent funding procedures to looking now at JTPA core funds. In
this view, the agency plan can serve as a vehicle for setting general
system coordination goals and for emphasizing means to coordinate
existing resources and eliminate duplication. A second OTEP regional
manager stated the belief that the agency requires as much coordination
as it can, but that coordination cannot be mandated in a decentralized
system such as JTPA; OTEP can only encourage coordination by supplying
information and resources. In this person's view, other agencies, such
as DOE, must also take more initiative to make it work. The third OTEP
respondent believed that state agency intervention has very limited
potential to promote coordination since "the real issue is at the local
level."
Definitions of Effective JTPA/Voc Ed Coordination
All of the definitions of effective interagency coordination
offered by regional DOE and OTEP staff focused on either joint regional
planning of joint program planning. Yet, these concepts grew out of
quite different visions of the optimal relationship between the two
- 72 -
systems. Two DOE respondents focused on regional planning, one stating,
Within the framework of joint planning, we need a shared
arrangement where the overall mission of each agency is not
threatened. Create a Regional Planning Group structure
that recognizes separate agency missions and whose role is
accepted by all. It can develop a Regional Plan to bridge
State and local efforts.
The Executive Office of Human Services' regional planning groups,
which bring together seven to eight agencies quarterly to work locally on
human services, was offered as an example of a successful planning body.
Two OTEP regional managers also focused on joint planning, offering
PIC committees as appropriate vehicles for exchanging information and
gathering data as well as for defining local problems, division of
responsibilities, and plans for action. Regional staff from both
agencies would, in this view, offer ongoing technical assistance,
information on resources and feedback, and would ensure broad-based
involvement in the PIC committees. One respondent stated the expectation
that much of this will happen naturally around the new federal
requirements for JTPA summer youth programs to include remedial academic
components .
Two other DOE regional respondents described jointly planned,
funded and staffed programs as the essence of local coordination. They
emphasized the importance of initiating bottom-up, rather than top-down,
planning for such joint programs. A fourth DOE respondent also
emphasized joint funding and programming, but also believes that
collaborative technical assistance is an important prerequisite and that
it should identify exemplary programs and models for sharing funding and
resources. Ongoing and direct Voc Ed/SDA information channels were also
seen as important for helping schools to understand the SDA and how it
operates.
- 73 -
OTEP respondents who defined coordination primarily as joint
programming offered two very different rationales. One respondent
believed that the key to combining resources and avoiding duplication is
to view Voc Ed and employment training as "one total system," with
vocational schools contracting to enroll a specific number of JTPA
clients annually and developing more open entry/open exit courses to do
so and incentives built in to encourage SDAs to use vocational school
programs wherever possible. A second OTEP regional manager advocated
joint programming, but with more schools and colleges actively pursuing
funds through the existing competitive RFP process, meeting all JTPA
performance standards.
Effectiveness of Current Coordination
When asked to rate the effectiveness of current JTPA/Voc Ed
coordination, most respondents in both sectors concurred that it is, on
average, only slightly effective. Several made the point that it is not
very helpful to rate general effectiveness as it usually ranges widely
across SDAs within one OTEP or DOE region from ineffective to quite
effective.
FACTORS PRODUCING EFFECTIVE COORDINATION:
Most DOE and OTEP interviewees identified good personal
relationships among local Voc Ed and SDA staff as perhaps the key factor
for producing effective coordination. Important elements in such
relationships included: one-on-one dialogue to break down misperceptions
and share information; commitment to understand each other's needs and to
negotiate; agreement on end goals; and readiness to be flexible and to
share resources. Several respondents also stated that it is important to
- 74 -
involve 'line staff from both agencies in determining state coordination
policy. One OTEP respondent applauded vocational administrators'
increased willingness to be flexible and to try to work with the JTPA
system.
One DOE respondent believed that effective working relationships
are most likely to emerge in areas where there are more disadvantaged
students — where schools and SDAs serve converging clientele and view
themselves as advocates for these clients. A second DOE interviewee
viewed geographical proximity as an important issue, with coordination
more likely to emerge in small SDAs or rural areas. A third DOE regional
ET & E specialist offered the opinion that coordination works best where
vocational schools and CCs are most actively taking initiative in
participating in employment training planning and service delivery. Only
one of the four DOE regional staff saw state coordination efforts as
providing the essential impetus for local coordination.
Although they did not see their own role as focusing on
relationships, all OTEP regional managers agreed that good working
relationships among local SDAs is the most important factor in promoting
local coordination. They also offered several additional factors. Two
believed that the lack of a 'politicized' climate or 'turf was important
for coordination. SDAs which do not have skill centers and which have
education coordination committees were also viewed as more likely to work
towards coordinating with Voc Ed. The willingness of Vocational Schools
and CCs to compete in the JTPA RFP process was viewed as an essential
factor by one respondent, who also emphasized the key importance of state
agencies making funds available and requiring a coordinated planning
process (as for Eight Percent funding) .
- 75 -
There was little agreement among interview participants on the
program areas in which coordination has been most effective. One DOE
staff respondent identified adult programming, where vocational schools
are cost-effective, as the most effective area for coordination. Two
OTEP respondents agreed that Voc Ed institutions most effectively provide
skill training — through competitive RFPs, selling slots or mainstreaming
clients in regular classes. One OTEP respondent identified literacy and
remedial education as services SDAs look more and more to CCs to
provide. Conversely, one DOE respondent and one OTEP respondent
identified services to youth — in-school and dropouts as well as referrals
to summer youth programs — as the most effective forms of coordination.
FACTORS HINDERING COORDINATION:
Both DOE and OTEP systems identified 'turf issues' as the primary
barrier to coordination, as did the majority of local level SDA and Voc
Ed respondents. Beyond this issue, there was little agreement either
within or across DOE and OTEP regional staff as to discouraging factors.
Other discouraging factors named included:
DOE
- lack of state leadership, financial and non-financial agreements;
- lack of linkages between state, regional and local levels;
- lack of DOE initiatives on issues such as literacy;
- schools lack experience of working with JTPA performance standards
and eligibility criteria;
- no JTPA understanding of vocational schools realities and problems
- misperceptions on both sides;
- 76 -
OTEP
- lack of funds and staff to do collaborative planning;
- vocational schools inaccessible, not equipped for recruitment
or job placement;
- need for more Voc Ed initiative in making contact — not yet
willing to be entrepreneurial, compete and meet performance
standards, fill vacuums;
- lack of flexibility on both sides — view that they are competing
systems, not parts of one system;
- where SDAs run own programs, are not open to alternatives;
- requirements for separate administrative treatment of funds.
Agency Efforts to Facilitate Local Coordination
Doe and OTEP regional staff were asked to identify organizational
or operational changes their own and the other agency had made to
facilitate local coordination. DOE staff identified as positive steps:
- staff time invested to identify needs and design programs;
- development of competitive RFPs requiring schools to deligate
coordination with SDAs;
- creation of programs like Commonwealth Futures to promote
innovative use of funds for dropouts and at-risk youth.
However, more DOE regional staff's comments related to needed agency
efforts, including:
- more institutionalization of communications;
- procedures for more in-depth OTEP review of state and local plans;
- need to strengthen SDA annual plan requirement and to solicit
DOE input into these.
One DOE respondent felt much more fundamental changes were needed before
coordination would be possible. In this view, because DOE is not
included in employment training decisions at the state or local levels,
there is not much it can do to promote coordination.
OTEP regional staff pointed more often to concrete policies and
programs they regard as agency efforts favoring coordination. The YCC
- 77 -
and the way it administers Eight Percent funding, Commonwealth Futures,
the new Cabinet Level Education and Employment Coordinating Council
(CLEECC) , and the involvement of education and Voc Ed in JTPA summer
programs were all identified as positive developments coming largely as a
result of OTEP efforts. OTEP also cited DOE efforts to get OTEP input
into recent Literacy Grants.
Among areas where agencies need to do more, OTEP respondents
focused on state involvement in targeting funds. Two OTEP regional staff
emphasized this point, one stating that it is:
hard to deal with institutional change at the State level;
it works better when local people are putting together specific
programs. SDAs find it easier to work with individual schools
than with the State Department of Education.
In this view, the most OTEP can do is to create an environment and
establish a forum for discussion. One OTEP interviewee went even
further, stating the opinion that vocational schools must learn to
compete in the existing JTPA system, according to existing rules:
If they can serve the hardest-to-serve clients and place
them in jobs according to JTPA performance standards, then
they are part of the employment training system and belong
at the planning table.
Eight Percent Fund Impact on Coordination Quality
There was a divergence of views between DOE and OTEP regional staff
on the effects of Eight Percent Education Coordination funding on overall
systemic coordination. OTEP saw this as a very positive force, stating
that in many locales, the 1984 Eight Percent funding proposal brought
broad education representation to the planning table for the first time.
In some cases, that original relationship has been institutionalized in i
permanent Education Coordinating Committee. One OTEP regional staff
- 78 -
differentiated between Eight Percent funding's affect on coordination
planning and on coordinated implementation. This interviewee expressed
the opinion that it is invariably harder than planning, but that the
experience of working out coordination issues arising during Eight
Percent implementation are most effective for building working
relationships because they involve line staff.
DOE respondents saw Eight Percent education funding as either a
neutral or a negative force on local coordination. One DOE regional
staff respondent stated that the first year of Eight Percent funding
really mandated coordinated planning, but subsequent years have been
largely controlled from the center, with no provision for regional input
or targeting local priorities. Three DOE interviewees felt that DOE had
not had a strong role in Eight Percent planning, as they believed JTPA
had intended for this particular funding allocation. They held that,
where coordination is taking place, it is happening for other reasons;
Eight Percent is not a driving force. One respondent put it even more
strongly that DOE had been "cheated out of Eight Percent funding."
School and College Delivery of JTPA Services
There was also a split between DOE and OTEP regional staff
perceptions of how much progress has been made in using secondary and
postsecondary public Voc Ed institutions to deliver JTPA training and
other services. OTEP respondents saw a lot of progress and anticipated
that it would only get better. DOE regional staff felt there had been a
little progress and that there were significant barriers to further
improvement. Voc Ed inclusion in local planning was seen as a
precondition for increasing delivery of services.
- 79 -
Two respondents pointed to divisions within Voc Ed which favor one
sector — either Vocational Schools, CCs or COMPHSs in different
localities — as a barrier to broad coordination which would maximize
services to clients. One DOE regional ET & E specialist believed Voc Ed
institutions will themselves have to consider some specific factors and
changes to be able effectively to deliver services to JTPA clients.
These factors are: scheduling, length of courses, recruitment ability,
support services and placement of clients, and cost-effectiveness.
Desirable Local Coordinating Activities
Regional staff from both agencies were asked to respond to the same
list of 10 possible activities for local coordination as were local
administrators. (With only seven total regional responses, these were
not broken out for JTPA and Voc Ed responses.) There was substantial
agreement between regional and local assessments of the most and least
desirable areas for pursuing local coordination. Regional responses were
in agreement that "sharing local labor market information," "reciprocal
referral procedures for participants" and "joint funding of programs"
were very desirable. "Joint intake & assessment procedures for
participants" and "joint follow-up" were judged to be the least desirable
local coordination activities, as local respondents had also rated them.
There were no factors for which there was marked disagreement between
regional and local responses.
Desirable State Level . Coordindation Efforts
Regional respondents were also asked to judge whether or not each
of the 10 state level interventions presented in the local level survey
would be likely to promote local Voc Ed/ JTPA coordination. Again,
regional interview responses virtually mirrored local survey responses.
- 80 -
Possible state efforts were judged as follows:
Positive
- Reciprocal of joint technical assistance sessions
- Sharing statewide labor information for planning
- Financial agreements, contracts and sub-contracts
Middle
- Joint or shared staff meetings
- Co-location of staff
Negative
- Exchange of staff
- Co-terminous planning districts
Respondent Comments
DOE regional ET & E specialists' final comments focused on the
importance of state level efforts to define clearly what is meant by
coordination. They suggested that leadership on coordination must
include information on specific ways coordination can take place — perhaps
in a guide to coordinating funds and practices. The DOE overall view
ranged from quite pessimistic to slightly optimistic about prospects for
local coordination.
OTEP regional managers, on the other hand, expressed considerable
optimism about local coordination efforts. The three respondents held
differing views on how OTEP and DOE could best facilitate local
coordination, ranging from "creating a climate and incentives" to
"staying out of the way." They also stressed the importance of private
sector involvement and the accountability of both education and
employment training sectors.
- 81 -
CHAPTER THREE
STATE LEVEL FINDINGS
As part of the study on coordination between the Voc Ed and
employment training systems in Massachusetts, eight middle and top level
state officials in DOE, EOEA and OTEP were interviewed. These
interviews, which ranged in length from 3 0-90 minutes, were conducted in
July, 1987. This chapter summarizes the dominant themes which emerged
from the interviews with state level officials. A list of interview
participants can be found in Appendix G.
Overall Status of Coordination
There was general consensus among the respondents that coordination
between JTPA and Voc Ed in Massachusetts "has a long way to go" but has
improved significantly over the last several years. Indeed, many forms
of inter-agency cooperation are occurring now in state government, and
Governor Dukakis strongly supports such collaboration. Many respondents
pointed to the importance of the ET Choices program (and, to a lesser
extent, the Bay State Skills Corporation) in providing a successful model
of collaboration. The Welfare Department was singled out as a agency
that is especially open to collaboration. Thus, the development of
JTPA/Voc Ed ties should be seen in this broader context.
It is important to note that many of the respondents in this study
had difficulty separating out Voc Ed from education in general in
analyzing the links between JTPA and Voc Ed. More and more of the joint
work that is occurring between OTEP and DOE is with divisions at DOE
other than Occupational Education. The ties with Adult Education, for
- 82 -
example, are growing, and dropout prevention programs are aimed primarily
at youth in the COMPHSs. Top DOE and OTEP officials think about
education and training in a very broad way and do not particularly focus
on the Voc Ed connection. This should be seen as a positive development
because it indicates that officials are thinking in very comprehensive
and creative terms.
Coordination Among Top Officials
At the very highest levels of management there is a new and
exciting spirit of collaboration. Commissioner Raynolds of DOE,
Chancellor Jennifer of the Board of Regents and Secretary Alviani of EOEA
work well together and meet frequently. This did not happen with their
predecessors. They also have a good relationship with Secretaries
Johnston, Executive Office of Human Services, and Eustace, Executive
Office of Labor, and the assistants to the Governor in the areas of
education, human resources, and economic development. It is clear that
coordination is a very high priority in these agencies. The formation of
the new CLEECC appears to be a very promising vehicle for promoting
further comprehensive joint planning. The proposal to institutionalize
CLEECC will be made to the Governor and Legislature by December 31,
1987. This proposal will include plans to reconstitute the State Job
Training Coordinating Council (SJTCC) which is currently moribund.
- 83 -
Coordination Among Middle Managers
Middle managers at OTEP and DOE have much more contact with one
another than they used to and are working together on a variety of
programs. There are some frustrations and turf issues that create
problems, but overall these do not present insurmountable barriers to
collaboration. Everyone interviewed felt that the relationship between
the two agencies was improving. As one OTEP official put it:
If you look at how differently people behave in state government
now, there is a big change. Five years ago, we didn't know names
of people in other agencies and we didn't do joint planning and
joint problem solving.
A DOE administrator pointed to:
The sharing of information and reports, advance notice of
conferences and meetings, co-support for major initiatives
such as Commonwealth Futures, and the fact that we both bend
our rules so we can work together.
Indeed, the range of cooperative efforts is impressive considering
that there was very little joint work in the past. Examples of
collaboration at the state level include the following:
- creation and continued existence of the YCC;
- joint participation in writing, reviewing proposals
and evaluating Eight Percent projects;
- co-funding of the four Youth Demonstration Projects
from 1984-86, three of which eventually became
Commonwealth Futures sites;
- Commonwealth Futures initiatives;
- Adult Workplace Education projects;
- matching of Chapter 188 with Eight Percent funds in
some projects;
- use of Eight Percent money to fund some positions at DOE;
- joint funding of programs for pregnant/parenting teens
along with the Welfare Department;
- detailed review process of the new state Voc Ed plan,
which gives OTEP a chance to influence the plan;
- changes in JTPA eligibility (allowing youth to be seen as
a family of one) standards which makes it easier to have
programs in schools..
- 84 -
Furthermore, there is much more information sharing among agencies, and
people have developed personal networks with their counterparts in other
agencies, a factor which greatly facilitates communication. More and
more, people in different agencies are 'talking the same language. '
Coordination at the Local Level
There was general agreement among those interviewed that
collaboration at the local level was spotty, with strong relationships
between JTPA and Voc Ed in some SDAs but rather weak ties in others.
(Two respondents, however, claimed that there was much more going on at
the local level than was generally realized.) All agreed that CCs
participate in a more meaningful way in JTPA training than they did in
the past. Not only are facilities and programs being used more, but CCs
are seen as more than just vendors, as they were in CETA days. Instead,
they are much more likely to be involved in joint planning efforts. The
CCs are viewed as entrepreneurial, flexible institutions which can tie
into JTPA fairly easily. The schools are seen as more difficult to work
with, in part because of their location and the difficulties of
scheduling courses. Some SDAs have developed good ties to those schools,
but others have not.
Officials interviewed would like to see collaboration occur at the
local level in a much more comprehensive way. One suggested that all
PICs have a permanent education committee that could provide a meaningful
review of Voc Ed and other plans. Others believed that local areas need
to set up articulated sequences of programs (including systems of
accepting course credit) among JTPA and Voc Ed institutions.
- 85 -
Factors Producing Effective Coordination
A variety of factors were identified that have helped produce more
effective coordination between JTPA and Voc Ed:
- leadership from the top — almost all respondents stressed that
the push by top officials (the Governor, Raynolds, Alviani,
Jennifer, Kathy Dunham, etc.) was critical to the improvement
that has occurred in trying to coordinate the two systems;
- funding cuts which force agencies to work together in order to
maximize resources;
- demographic factors — the decline in student enrollments — which
push school administrators to reach out to non-traditional
student to justify their programs and facilities;
- new laws which mandate cooperation;
- effectiveness of the YCC in bringing people together at the
state level, and its effectiveness in stimulating local
collaboration through the RFP process;
- growing sensitivity among many vocational administrators
to the needs of the disadvantaged.
Factors Hindering Coordination
The following factors which hinder cooperation between the two
systems were singled out:
- The two systems have different structures and somewhat different
missions. ("We are fumbling around to see how we can mesh two
systems that aren't structured in a way that is easy to put
together.") JTPA is an exclusively federal program for the
disadvantaged run by an agency that is directly accountable to
the Governor. The Voc Ed system is largely funded by state and
local monies and is accountable to local school committees and
boards of education/regents who are one step removed from the
political process. Voc Ed has to serve a wide range of students,
not just those targeted as being disadvantaged.
- Many schools have difficulty with performance-based contracting
that is required in most JTPA programs.
- It is sometimes difficult to use Voc-Tech schools because of
scheduling and transportation problems.
- There is a history of two separate cultures, and there was no
particular interest in collaboration in the past from top
policymakers in the systems.
- 86 -
Personalities and personal views of territoriality (turf)
interfere with coordination efforts.
There is a natural bias whereby staff people at all levels
in one agency have difficulty seeing the driving and con-
straining forces that affect people in a different angency.
There is tension as a result of the fact that Perkins money
can be used as a match for JTPA money, but JTPA money can-
not be used as a match for Perkins.
The fact that other agencies are required to have some input
into the state Voc Ed plan, but there is no reciprocal
requirement about interagency input into the JTPA plan
creates an obstacle to genuine cooperation.
Final Comments and Observations
There was universal agreement among the respondents that the
process initiated by DOE this year in soliciting reviews of the state Voc
Ed plan by other agencies was a very significant step forward in
coordinating the two systems. One OTEP official called it
"Extraordinary. I have never seen anything like that in any state
agency. "
There was no sentiment to merge agencies. All felt that
bureaucratic reorganization or the creation of an education/training
mega-agency was not worth the effort. Instead, everyone believes that
there are a number of workable models of collaboration among agencies
already, and these types of programs should be replicated and expanded.
All officials interviewed "spoke the same language" about the goals
of coordination. No one supports the idea of coordination for its own
sake; instead, all are very results-oriented. They believe strongly that
coordination should take place around a practical, concrete problem that
can be solved through joint action with measurable results. Further, all
of those interviewed believed that coordination must include joint
planning. And all of the respondents spoke in client-centered language.
That is, joint planning, information sharing, and co-funding. arrangements
- 87 -
should occur only if clients' lives (rather than organizations' status)
are improved as a result.
Recommendations for Change from State Level Officials
The followig recommendations emerged from the interviews (not all
of these were mentioned by all respondents) :
- The Governor, the Massachusetts Board of Education, and other
top officials should constantly support inter-agency co-
operation and seek tasks around which people can coalesce.
They must keep saying it and enforcing it.
- Insofar as it is possible, both Perkins money and Eight Percent
JPTA money shuold be used as levers for institutional change
within systems and between systems.
- The SJTCC should be reconstituted as a viable body.
- Top level officials in OTEP and DOE (along with other agencies)
should collaborate on a major new initiative which is co-
funded by them.
- There should be reciprocal review of the JTPA plan by DOE and
other agencies.
- PICs should have a permanent Education Committee if they do
not already have one.
- Some state money is needed for schools to receive "up-front"
in order to help them fund JTPA programs which require
performance contracting.
- DOE regional staff funded from Eight Percent money need to
work more closely with SDA offices.
- The YCC should have a clearer sense of its priorities and
should have some representatives who work directly with
disadvantaged youth.
- Representatives from Voc Ed schools and CCs need to be more
integrated into PICs if they are not already. A more
comprehensive local planning process is needed that will
allow students/clients to move more easily from one
training or education component to another.
- 88 -
Comparative View: State and Regional Findings
In interviewing regional staff, this study hoped to gain the
perspective of those who link the state and local systems. In fact,
regional staff from both OTEP and DOE expressed more qualified views of
current and potential coordination efforts than did state level
respondents. State level agency staff were largely optimistic abut the
direction in which coordination is moving, and the potential for state
leadership and policy interventions to encourage local level coordination.
OTEP regional staff were generally optimistic about local
coordination, but expressed reservations about the extent to which state
policy initiatives could bring this about. Their role was clearly
delineated: communicating information and incentives from the State to
the SDAs, within the limits of their very decentralized system. It did
not appear that state agency staff looked to regional managers for
information on SDAs' coordination perceptions, priorities or needs.
All DOE regional respondents but one were somewhat pessimistic
about current and potential coordination. They saw a need for more
fundamental structural and attitudinal changes in both systems than state
level staff described. Their pessimism may to some extent reflect their
sense of being overlooked and by-passed within their own system. DOE
regional staff, in some areas, have provided one of the few links between
SDAs and the Voc Ed community, even if their current and potential
coordination roles are not acknowledged by either agency.
However, important common attitudes about coordination emerged
across state and regional levels at both OTEP and DOE:
- client-centered views;
- belief building in interagency working relationships at all
levels;
- 89 -
priority on coordinating resources around specific programmatic
initiatives and targeted populations;
emphasis on sharing information and workable models for
coordination.
- 90 -
CHAPTER FOUR
OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION
As discussed in the Introduction to this report, the main purpose
of the Council's study was to further the coordination dialogue which is
emerging between Voc Ed and JTPA systems at the state level and in many
localities. In the Council's view, this study's primary contribution is
the data on local coordination perceptions and practices presented in
Chapter One. It is hoped that each local and state administrator will
find in that chapter data to inform his or her own efforts. The survey
process in itself was designed to provoke thinking, to raise questions
and to test some generalizations about what factors are encouraging and
hindering coordination, and about present needs and possible future
directions and coordination.
This chapter will attempt briefly to draw some conclusions from
local survey findings, along with comments from state and regional EOEA
and DOE staff as to the adequacy and effectiveness of current levels of
coordination. It will focus on findings which offer direction for state
efforts to facilitate local Voc Ed/ JTPA coordination practices.
With all the limitations of a 53% survey response rate, some useful
information was drawn out in the study. Chapter One offered a
comparative view of local Voc Ed and JTPA administrators' concepts of
coordination, encouraging and discouraging factors, costs and benefits.
It identified local activities judged more or less desirable for
coordination, as well as state policy measures seen as most and least
likely to facilitate local coordination.
- 91 -
Yet, it should be emphasized that for all survey elements what is
reported is an average for each sector. The necessary caution is that
this composite will not always accurately reflect the needs, perceptions
and views of individual administrators in each local area. Responses,
for example, confirmed that the levels of commitment local SDAs and Voc
Ed institutions have already made to coordinated planning and services
with the other sector ranged widely from almost no communication to
extensive joint planning and programming.
Priority Directions for Coordination
Local SDA respondents expressed somewhat less discontent with the
nature and effectiveness of current local level coordination practices
than did Voc Ed respondents. Similarly, regional OTEP staff expressed
more optimism about the direction in which coordination is presently
moving than regional DOE staff. It is important also to differentiate
views and motivations among different kinds of Voc Ed institutions: CC
presidents were the most satisfied with current SDA relationships, while
RTVSs were least satisfied.
All Voc Ed sectors (i.e. COMPHSs, CTY/INDs, RVTSs, and CCs) judged
current levels of coordination to be largely ineffective for meeting
local training needs, while SDAs found coordination to be slightly more
than moderately effective. One interpretation of this finding is that
many Voc Ed institutions — including CCs — feel more need to pursue
coordination than do most SDAs, who see it as a less essential pursuit.
However, given SDAs' central responsibility for meeting employment
training needs and Voc Ed's more peripheral involvement in training in
most localities, it is to be expected that SDAs would rate the current
situation more satisfactory and effective. The fact that
- 92 -
they rated these only moderate, on or near the middle of the scale,
suggests considerable motivation and willingness on the part of most SDAs
to pursue coordination with Voc Ed.
This study did not attempt to distinguish between qualitative
attributes of "coordinated," "collaborative," or "cooperative" behavior,
as some have. It started from the assumption that coordination is always
an ideal state best defined by those who are working to achieve it, for
whom it is but one tool for improving the effectiveness of their services
to students and clients. In systems as decentralized as JTPA and Voc Ed,
there is room for a wide range of different local visions of coordination.
Yet, virtually all visions of effective local coordination were
found to include improved communications, information sharing and ongoing
dialogue. There is clear consensus across sectors that channels for
regular dialogue between Voc Ed institutions and the local SDA/PIC are
necessary preconditions for coordination. Beyond this, there is enough
disagreement within and across sectors on optimal focus, modes and
components of coordination to suggest that it would not be productive for
state agencies more clearly to 'define' coordination, as a few local
respondents suggested.
Focusing State Support on Local Coordination Efforts
Two important distinctions about coordination emerged from the
local survey. First, it is important to distinguish coordinated
activities which aim only at increasing Voc Ed participation in
delivering employment training services from activities which include
them in joint planning. Voc Ed institutions from all sectors reported
that they view coordination as a means to gain opportunities to
participate in local employment training planning — not simply as a means
- 93 -
to increase their delivery of services to JTPA clients.
Second, it is essential to consider whether planned policy-
initiatives promote coordinated planning around one specific proposal or
activity, or whether they in some way increase local systems' capacity to
institutionalize a coordinated planning process. Certainly, working
together to meet proposal requirements for joint planning and
implementation can fuel coordination or encourage future efforts where
good working relationships exist. But, policy initiatives which aim to
promote more ongoing and systemic coordination must address 'worst case'
as well as 'best case' relationships and not assume that joint planning
relations will automatically be institutionalized.
The state policy emphasis on coordination around practical,
concrete problems reported in state level interviews addresses some
important areas of JTPA/Voc Ed coordination. It does not, however, offer
assistance to help local agencies develop their capacity to coordinate
planning on an ongoing basis or in response to specific incentives.
Local respondents are clearly influenced by state policy initiatives and
state agency modeling of collaborative behavior; state leadership on
coordination from the Governor, the YCC and the State Council on
Vocational Education were named by local administrators as among the
factors most encouraging coordination. But state initiatives did not
always translate into effective or lasting local coordination,
particularly where program priorities identified at the state level did
not correspond to local coordination priorities.
In fact, personal relationships and client or student need were
named by nearly all respondents as the primary factors driving local
coordination. Coordination initiatives targeting specific issues or
populations will go further to promote systemic local coordination when
- 94 -
they grow out of local priorities and when they offer assistance for
developing channels for ongoing dialogue and planning. Proposal
requirements for coordination must look beyond what is needed for
planning and implementing a specific program and, where possible, should
make funding available for investment in administrative staff time needed
for working out coordinated JTPA/Voc Ed relationships. The Commonwealth
Futures Dropout Prevention Initiative offers one useful model, creating a
process that encourages local dialogue and builds local coordination
capacity in communities at all levels of initial 'readiness' (although
not one that affords the broadest base of planning input from the
education community) .
SDAs seemed most disposed to respond to direct state funding
incentives for specific coordinated programs and to use this same method
for soliciting local Voc Ed services. The RFP process does not, however,
meet present coordination needs of Voc Ed institutions very well. They
are more concerned with identifying places where their resources can
serve local employment training planning and service needs-filling gaps
and eliminating duplication. Furthermore, scarcity of resources was not
identified by either SDAs or Voc Ed as a major factor encouraging
coordination. In fact, local administrators indicated that staff
reduction, in particular, made it less likely they could afford the time
investment coordination requires. Agencies cannot assume that funding
cuts will drive Voc Ed and JTPA systems to coordinate in the absence of
other kinds of support.
- 95 -
For virtually all local respondents, the factors most hindering
coordination were related to perceived differences in mission, roles and
power, and to communication and information gaps. Wide agreement on
"turf issues" as a major barrier suggests that present obstacles could be
largely overcome through ongoing dialogue. The emphasis on "difficulty
of communication/too may channels to go through" as a primary
discouraging factor supports the conclusion that establishing effective
local communication channels is an essential prerequisite for
coordination.
Less subjective barriers include "differences in respective
definitions of allowable services and/or budgetary items" and "staff and
time demands." These factors limit coordination possibilities even in
areas where effective channels and ongoing dialogue have taken root.
These would be important factors for state policymakers to study, with a
view to possible changes. It is encouraging that regulatory mandates
like matching, eligibility, performance standards and performance-based
contracting as well as geographical boundaries — all relatively
intractable factors — were judged by local respondents to be only somewhat
discouraging.
The one regulatory issue respondents at all levels found quite
frustrating was the fact that Perkins funding can be used to match for
JTPA, while JTPA funds do not qualify as a match for Perkins. This issue
can only be addressed at the federal level in the context of the upcoming
reauthorization of the Perkins Voc Ed Act.
- 96 -
Voc Ed Service Delivery to JTPA
This study did not seek to gather data on the extent to which Voc
Ed institutions are currently delivering JTPA funded services. It would
have been a very difficult task, given that there is no indicator in the
JTPA management information system which delineates each client's primary
service provider. Although far from conclusive, the study identified
some general patterns: most SDAs reported contracting with at least one
Voc Ed institution, usually to serve an annual total of one to five
clients from JTPA Title IIA, core funds.
There was not complete geographic congruence between SDA and Voc Ed
respondents, and the majority of Voc Ed respondents in all sectors,
except CCs, reported they received no JTPA funding and served no JTPA
clients in PY 1986. The majority of CCs served 51-250 JTPA clients and
administered funds ranging between $50,000 and $100,000. The secondary
Voc Ed institutions which had served JTPA clients in PY 1986
(approximately a quarter of them) served fewer than 250 clients,
averaging $10, 000-$50, 000 total funding. Voc Ed institutions reported
having served more Summer Youth (Title IIB) clients than Title IIA. This
amount will undoubtedly increase considerably for PY 1987 with the new
requirement that JTPA Summer Youth programs include academic remediation.
i
Voc Ed institutions reported providing a much wider range of
services to JTPA than SDAs reported receiving. Voc Ed reported providing
assessment, vocational exploration, job readiness training, a range of
academic skills including bilingual education, referrals, job development
and follow-up, in addition to the staff, space, equipment, classroom
occupational skill training and GED preparation that SDAs reported.
- 97 -
This finding seems to indicate a lack of information on the part of many
SDAs as to services Voc Ed can and does provide.
This information gap very likely influenced SDA perceptions of how
well Voc Ed program offerings meet local JTPA client needs and the range
of clients they can effectively serve. (SDAs focused on JTPA services to
youth.) SDAs also suggested broader kinds of changes they believe Voc Ed
institutions need to make to enable them to serve JTPA clients. All Voc
Ed sectors identified a much wider variety of services and a greater
diversity of client populations they serve or believe they could serve
well and relatively few needed changes — mostly due to limited resources
and conflicting missions.
SDAs and CCs participated much more in activities funded through
the Eight Percent Education Coordination Grants than secondary Voc Ed
institutions. Many secondary Voc Ed respondents stated that they had not
known of opportunities to work with the SDA on developing an Eight
Percent proposal. Eight Percent funds served the intended function of
promoting broad-based local JTPA coordination with education in some
local areas where the planning committees, originally established to
comply with Eight Percent RFP requirements, envolved into permanent
education committees.
Participation in Planning and Information Exchange
This survey examined the extent to which SDAs and Voc Ed
institutions carry out three kinds of coordination activities mandated by
the Perkins Act and JTPA and five other local activities promoting
exchange of information. The survey results indicate formal planning
mandates in themselves do little to assure effective communication.
- 98 -
Mandated reviews of Perkins applications and provision to the PICs of
Perkins program listings were described as pro forma where they were
recognized at all. Gaps in perception of inclusion emerged as an
important adjunct to gaps in coordination practices. For example, SDAs
reported including Voc Ed institutions in their planning process and in
their regular mailings far more than Voc Ed institutions believed they
had been included.
Only a few SDAs, schools or colleges reported that they had adopted
institutional criteria for coordination or had identified staff
specifically responsible for coordination, both of which are indicators
of a more proactive approach to coordination. The extent to which local
agencies can make coordination an explicit part of their institutional
mission and can commit staff to carrying this out is severely constrained
by limits on staff resources and by competing priorities. It must also
be acknowledged that some Voc Ed institutions have incorporated staff and
resource demands related to participation in employment training planning
and service delivery without reorganizing their staff or explicitly
changing their institutional mission.
Membership Potential and Limitations
Exchange of members between Voc Ed and SDAs — on the PIC Executive
Board and PIC Committee as well as on Voc Ed Advisory Committee — offers
additional channels for information exchange and planning input.
Membership on PIC Boards is widely perceived by schools and colleges as
their best potential channel for input into the local employment training
system, and nearly all CCs reported they are represented on PICs, as did
almost half of RVTS respondents and a third of COMPHSs. Nearly every
institution surveyed had made at least one attempt to gain PIC membership
- 99 -
However, there are severe practical limitations on the number of
Voc Ed institutions that can expect to serve on the PIC. Perhaps even
more important, PIC Board membership in itself has limited capacity to
develop the kind of dialogue that effective local coordination
requires — dialogue which addresses specific problems, needs and resources
and which involves the Voc Ed and SDA staff who carry out coordinated
activities as well as superintendents, presidents, and directors.
Given the current wide interest in coordination and the perception
that it can be beneficial to SDAs and Voc Ed institutions, it is
counterproductive to focus on PIC membership as the primary indicator of
an institution's commitment. Failure to gain a seat on the PIC Board
must not continue to be perceived as an insurmountable obstacle to Voc Ed
participation in the local employment training system.
State agencies and local institutions need to shift their focus for
promoting coordination away from the PIC toward more broad-based
education and planning committees. In some areas, such committees exist
under PIC sponsorship, with membership and roles more broadly or more
narrowly defined. These are likely to be the most appropriate vehicles
for promoting expanded, direct Voc Ed participation in employment
training planning, although in some locales, targeted sub-committees of
broader human service coordination groups or a Commonwealth Futures
planning group might be potentially more effective. SDA participation in
Voc Ed general and program advisory committees is another important point
of linkage for the two systems and opportunity for learning about each
other's strengths and needs.
- 100 -
Most Desirable Local and State Coordination Activities
Responses from Chapter One, Section F and from regional staff
indicate that most SDAs and Voc Ed institutions hold very similar agendas
for at least initial stages of local coordination. There was wide
consensus across agencies at both regional and local levels on the
desirability and feasibility of coordinated information sharing on state
and local labor markets, formal interagency financial and nonfinancial
agreements, reciprocal referral procedures, joint technical assistance
and joint funding of programs. There was also consensus among state,
regional and local respondents that bureaucratic
reorganization — developing jointly staffed agencies or joint intake,
assessment and evaluation procedures — would not be desirable or feasible
avenues for pursuing coordination.
State Intervention: Facilitation and Leadership
The essence of this report's message is that commitment to JTPA/Voc
Ed coordination must come from the bottom-up as well as the top-down. It
can be encouraged or facilitated by state level policy interventions, but
must build on local commitment. Survey responses indicate that there is
some degree of commitment to improving coordination in nearly all
localities. However, state agencies must first offer local Voc Ed and
JTPA agencies support for establishing or developing dialogue.
Communication channels do not always appear to be in place to foster
dialogue, which virtually all respondents named as an essential vehicle
for coordination.
- 101 -
State leadership on coordination is essential, but it cannot focus
only on developing policy initiatives and interagency working
relationships at the state level. Administrators believe the State could
most effectively assist their local coordination efforts. To effectively
promote coordination at the local level, state level interventions must
be responsive to input from the regional and local administrators who are
actually responsible for making Voc Ed/JTPA coordination work.
- 102 -
CHAPTER FIVE
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS
After analysis of this study's extensive findings, the Council
developed a set of seven recommendations for state and local policy
actions to improve JTPA/Voc Ed Coordination.
1. The Council recommends that the Executive Office of Economic
Affairs (EOEA) and the Department of Education (DOE) offer funding to at
least three local SDA/Voc Ed administrator teams which have developed
successful modes for coordinating funding, programming or planning.
These funds would be for the purpose of developing printed coordination
resource and peer training workshop guides to disseminate information on
effective practices.
2. The Council recommends that EOEA and DOE continue to use part
of the 2 0% administrative portion of the Eight Percent Education
Coordination funding to fund staff who can link the two systems. These
staff should be attached to Voc Ed institutions and SDAs rather than to
the DOE regional office. The roles and responsibilities of these staff
(for technical assistance, facilitation, etc.) should be determined by
local Voc Ed and JTPA administrators in each region. Regional
coordination staff should be included on planning committees, developing
all state initiatives concerning coordination.
- 103 -
3 . EOEA and DOE should use funding proposal criteria and local
plan requirements wherever possible to encourage involvement of local
Education/Planning Committees (likely to be PIC-sponsored) . The EOEA and
DOE should investigate possibilities for incorporating processes for
facilitating ongoing local dialogue between Voc Ed institutions and JTPA
into funding procedures, such as the Commnwealth Futures model for local
planning and technical assistance.
4. A portion of funding from JTPA and Perkins funds should be made
available to support the development and articulation of
open-entry/open-exit program and support services for JTPA client
populations.
5. CLEECC should examine possibilities for state EOEA and DOE
assistance to alleviate identified barriers to coordination including:
- differences in respective definitions of allowable
services and/or budgetary items;
- need for increased staff or reduced time demands for
coordinating planning and service delivery;
- possibilities for developing reciprocal referral
procedures ;
- possibilities for streamlining administration and
reporting for jointly funded programs.
6. Local SDA review of Voc Ed Perkins funding application should
be strengthened, and Voc Ed institutions should be encouraged to provide
listings of their program offerings to the SDA/PIC. SDAs should be
encouraged to solicit the input of Voc Ed institutions in the development
of the local employment training plan, while state JTPA and Voc Ed Plan
development should build-in reciprocal review (as the Voc Ed planning
process has done) .
- 104 -
7. SDAs should be encouraged to review their PIC Board and
Committee membership, with particular attention to the breadth of Voc Ed
participation and planning roles in Education/Planning Committees. Voc
Ed institutions should be encouraged to consider including SDA/PIC
representation on General or Program Advisory Committees.
A - 1
APPENDIX A
INSTITUTIONS PARTICIPATING IN LOCAL LEVEL SURVEY
SERVICE DELIVERY AREAS
— Boston
— Brockton
— Berkshire (Pittsf ield)
— Cambridge
— Fall River
— Franklin/Hampshire (Greenfield)
— Massachusetts (Gardner)
— South Coastal (N. Quincy)
COMMUNITY COLLEGES
— Bristol Community College
— Bunker Hill Community College
— Greenfield Community College
— Holyoke Community College
— Massasoit Community College
--Middlesex Community College
— North Shore Community College
— Northern Essex Community College
— Quinsigamond Community College
REGIONAL VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL AND COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS
— Blue Hills Regional Vocational-Technical School
— Bristol-Plymouth Regional Vocational-Technical School
— Cape Cod Regional Vocational-Technical School
— Essex Agricultural School
— Franklin County Regional Vocational-Technical School
— Greater Lawrence Vocational-Technical School
— Greater Lowell Vocational-Technical School
— Joseph P.Keefe Vocational-Technical School
— Minuteman Regional Vocational-Technical School
— Massachusetts Regional Vocational-Technical School
— Northern Bershire Vocational School
— North Shore Regional Vocational-Technical School
— Old Colony Vocational-Technical School
— Pathfinder Regional Vocational-School
— South Worcester County Vocational-Techniccal School
— Whittier Vocational School
INDEPENDENT VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS
— Lawrence Vocational School
— Northampton-Smith Vocational School
— Worcester Trade Complex
A - 2
CITY VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS
— >Dean Vocational-Technical School (Holyoke)
— Everett Vocational High School
— Humphrey Occupational Resource Center (Boston)
—Leominster Trade School
— William 0. Peabody High School (Norwood)
— Salem Vocational High School
— Weymouth Vocational -Technical School
COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOLS WITH DIRECTORS OF OCCUPATIONAL
EDUCATION
— Brookline High School
— Cambridge Rindge & Latin High School
— Chicopee Comprehensive High School
— Drury Senior High School (North Adams)
— Framingham Public Schools
— Melrose High School
— New Bedford Public Schools
— Claude H. Patton Vocational High School
— Watertown Public Schools
— Worcester Public Schools
B - 1
APPENDIX B
RECENT SDA/VOC ED RELATIONSHIP CHANGES REPORTED
SPA
-2 SDAs cited greater contacts with CCs and one with Voc-
Tech Schools.
-2 SDAs observed that participation in Commonwealth Futures
Dropout Prevention effort has brought closer contact
with local public schools systems.
-1 SDA cited "numerous cooperative efforts in literacy,
dislocated workers, Welfare, E.T., and skills
training.
CC
-2 CCs stated that they have recently had more contact with
PICs, one through membership of the college president
and one through participation in monthly PIC meetings
-2 CCs reported recent collaboration with PICs on Summer
Youth programs, and one on Adult Basic Literacy
Programs .
-1 CC cited a downturn in its planning input to the PIC,
which has turned increasingly to the City Vocational
School .
RVTS
-2 RVTSs cited recent appointment of their superintendent to
the PIC; one other has been invited to PIC Education
Sub-Committee Meetings. One Regional Voc-Tech
reported that its new superintendent is actively
seeking PIC membership, although the previous
superintendents were refused appointment.
-2 RVTSs reported starting to deliver services by contract
to the PIC over the past 2-3 years; one other
reported that recent overtures were refused due to
PIC funding cuts.
-2 RVTSs reported active efforts and discussions with PICs
currently underway.
CTY/IND
-1 CTY/IND reported that it has begun serving as a site for
the Summer Youth Program.
-2 CTY/INDs reported recent negative contacts; one
participated in a school/college/community
partnership which the PIC would not fund to do adult
skill training; one reported that it received no
comment on Perkins proposals submitted to the PIC.
COMPHS
-1 COMPHS reported recent membership on a PIC Board.
-2 COMPHSs reported ongoing and improving relations with the
PIC.
-1 COMPHS has a Summer Program co- funded by Perkins and JTPA,
C - 1
APPENDIX C
VOC ED REPORTS ON JTPA CLIENTS SERVED
(By Type of Institution and by Funding Title)
Please note that cumulative category totals for all these tables (Title
IIA + Title IIB + 8% Education Coordination) do not always correspond to
JTPA total figures (which were first totalled numerically) . ' N' is also
different across categories because of 'no comment1 responses.
TABLE CI: VOC ED REPORT OF JTPA TITLE IIA CLIENTS
# Clients
1000+
501-1000
251-500
51-250
11-50
1-10
-0-
RVTS
CTY/IND
COMPHS
cc
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
10
5
8
6
(N - 12)
(N = 8)
(N = 8)
(N =
TABLE C2: VOC ED REPORT OF JTPA TITLE IIB CLIENTS
# Clients
1000+
501-1000
251-500
51-250
11-50
1-10
-0-
RVTS
CTY/IND
COMPHS
CC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
10
10
5
5
(N = 12)
(N = 10)
(N = 9)
(N = 8)
C - 2
TABLE C3; VOC ED REPORT OF EIGHT PERCENT FUND CLIENTS
# Client
RVTS
CTY/IND
0
COMPHS
0
O
1000+
0
0
501-1000
0
0
0
0
251-500
0
0
0
0
51-250
1
0
2
1
11-50
1
0
0
1
1-10
0
0
0
1
-0-
10
0
7
5
(N -
12)
(N
= 10)
(N
= 9)
(N =
D - 1
APPENDIX D
VOC ED REPORTS ON FUND DISTRIBUTION
TABLE Dl: VOC ED REPORT OF PY '86 TITLE IIA JTPA FUND AMOUNTS
Amount
RVTS
CTY/IND
COMPHS
cc
$250,001-500,000
0
1
0
0
$100,001-250,000
0
0
0
0
$50,001-100,000
1
0
0
2
$10,001-50,000
0
3
0
0
$5,001-10,000
0
0
0
0
$1-5,000
0
0
0
0
-0-
10
5
9
6
(N = 11) (N = 9) (N = 9) (N = 8)
TABLE D2: VOC ED REPORT OF PY '86 TITLE IIB JTPA FUND AMOUNTS
Amount
RVTS
CTY/IND
COMPHS
CC
$250,001-500,000
$100,001-250,000
$50,001-100,000
$10,001-50,000
$5,001-10,000
$1-5,000
-0-
0
0
1
1
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
1
1
1
1
0
4
1
0
1
1
0
0
5
(N
= 12)
(N = 10)
(N = 8)
(N = 8)
TABLE D3:
VOC ED REPORT
OF PY '86 EIGHT
PERCENT FUND
AMOUNTS
Amount
RVTS
CTY/IND
COMPHS
CC
$250,001-500,000
$100,001-250,000
$50,001-100,000
$10,001-50,000
$5,001-10,000
$1-5,000
-0-
0
1
0
1
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
1
0
1
0
0
7
0
0
1
0
0
1
5
(N
= 12)
(N =* 10)
(N = 9)
(N = 7)
E - 1
APPENDIX E
SERVICES VOC ED INSTITUTIONS SUPPLIED TO JTPA
Services are listed below in the order of frequency with which they were
reported by each type of institution.
CC
RVTS
Table El: Administration and Support Services
1. General Administration
2. Referrals
3 . Space
4 . Equipment
5. Personnel/Staff
6. Intake/Vocational Assessment
7 . Transportation
8. Counseling
9. Job Search and Placement
10. Tracking/Follow-up
11. Credit
12. Job Development
13 . Funding
1. General Administration
2. Space
3. Personnel/Staff
4 . Job Development
5 . Equipment
6. Referrals
7. Counseling
8. Tracking/Follow-up
9 . Credit
10. Transportation
11. Job Search and Placement
12 . Funding
13 . Intake/Vocational Assessment
CTY/IND
1. Space
2. Referrals
3 . General Administration
4 . Equipment
5. Counseling
6. Personnel/Staff
7 . Job Development
8 . Job Search and Placement
9 . Credit
10. Funding
11. Intake/Vocational Assessment
12. Tracking/Follow-up
E - 2
(Table El continued)
COMPHS
1.
Personnel/Staff
2.
Credit
3.
Referrals
4.
Intake/Vocational Assessment
5.
Space
6.
Equipment
7.
Funding
8.
Counseling
9.
General Administration
10.
Transportation
11.
Job Development
12.
Job Search and Placement
13.
Tracking/Follow-up
14.
Daycare
Note that only one Voc Ed institution reported providing
Daycare.
cc
RVTS
CTY/IND
COMPHS
E - 3
Table E2 : Instructional Services
1. Classroom Occupational Skills Training
2. Basic Academic Skills Training
3 . GED Preparation
4. Bilingual Education/Training
5. Vocational Exploration
6. Employability/Job Readiness
7 . On-the-Job Training
8. Customized Training
9 . Work or Cooperative Experience
10. English as a Second Language
1. Classroom Occupational Skills Training
2. Vocational Exploration
3. Employability/Job Readiness
4 . Work or Cooperative Experience
5. Basic Academic Skills Training
6. On-the-Job Training
7 . GED Preparation
8. Bilingual Education/Training
9. Customized Training
1. Classroom Occupational Skills Training
2. Basic Academic Skills Training
3 . GED Preparation
4. Bilingual Education/Training
5. Employability/Job Readiness
6. Vocational Exploration
7 . Work or Cooperative Experience
8 . On-the-Job Training
9 . Vocational Laboratory
1. Classroom Occupational Skills Training
2 . Basic Academic Skills Training
3 . Vocational Exploration
4. Employability/Job Readiness
5. Work or Cooperative Experience
6. Bilingual Education/Training
7 . GED Preparation
8. On-the-Job Training
9. Customized Training
SDA
F - 1
APPENDIX F
DESIRABLE LOCAL LEVEL COORDINATION
1 (not at all) - 5 (Very)
ACTIVITY
Sharing local labor market information
Reciprocal referral procedures for participants
Joint or reciprocal technical assistance
Joint funding of programs
Joint operation of programs
Joint/reciprocal staff development
Joint preparation of local service plans
Joint follow-up activities on students/clients
Joint program evaluation
Joint intake & assessment procedures
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
6
5
1
6
4
4
4
9
8
1
CC
Reciprocal referral procedures for participants
Sharing local labor market information
Joint or reciprocal staff development
Joint or reciprocal technical assistance
Joint preparation of local service plans
Joint follow-up activities on students/clients
Joint funding of programs
Joint program evaluation
Joint intake & assessment procedures
Joint operation of programs
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
6
4
4
4
2
0
9
8
6
0
RVTS
Sharing local labor market information
Reciprocal referral procedures for participants
Joint funding of programs
Joint or reciprocal technical assistance
Joint follow-up activities on students/clients
Joint operation of programs
Joint preparation of local service plans
Joint program evaluation
Joint intake & assessment procedures
Joint or reciprocal staff development
CTY/IND
Sharing local labor market information
Joint preparation of local service plans
Reciprocal referral procedures for participants
Joint or reciprocal technical assistance
Joint funding of programs
Joint program evaluation
Joint follow-up activities on students/clients
Joint or reciprocal staff development
Joint intake & assessment procedures
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
7
6
6
5
5
5
4
3
6
1
0
6
4
4
3
1
0
F - 2
ACTIVITY
COMPHS X
Joint funding of programs 4.7
Sharing local labor market information 4 . 6
Joint operation of programs 4 . 4
Joint or reciprocal technical assistance 4.4
Joint follow-up activities on students/clients 4.4
Reciprocal referral procedures 4 . 4
Joint or reciprocal staff development 4 . 3
Joint program evaluation 4 . 3
Joint intake & assessment procedures 4 . 0
Joint preparation of local service plans 3 . 9
G - 1
APPENDIX G
STATE AND REGIONAL INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
Department of Education
State Policymakers:
Commissioner Harold Raynolds, Jr.
David F.Cronin, Associate Commissioner of Occupational
Education
Frank Llamas, Director, Education and Employment Bureau
Phyillis Lary, Director, Postsecondary Bureau
Regional Education Training and Employment Specialists:
Eleanor Andrade
John Bynoe
George Cravins
Mimi Jones
Executive Office of Economic Affairs
State Policymakers:
Undersecretary Eric Van Loon
Catherine N. Stratton, OTEP Associate Secretary
Maria Grigorieff, Director, OTEP Planning and Evaluation
Cecilia Rivera-Casales, OTEP Planner
OTEP Regional Managers:
Katherine Carroll Day
Jon Koppelman
Duncan Parker
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11