(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Vocational education/employment training coordination in Massachusetts"

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 
Umve 1eposW 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 

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 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 
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-centered 1 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 . 

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 . 

More comprehensive services 3.0 

Strong YCC support for coordination 2 . 9 

More comprehensive services 3.2 

Strong Governor support for coordination 3 . 

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 . 

Staff & time demands of the RFP process 3 . 

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+ 











500-1000 


1 


1 





250-499 











51-250 





2 


1 


11-50 





2 


1 


1-10 


4 





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 








500-1000 











250-499 





1 





51-250 


1 


2 


1 


11-50 





3 


1 


1-10 


1 








-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+ 














500-1000 














250-499 


1 


1 





1 


51-250 








2 


4 


11-50 


2 


1 


2 


1 


1-10 


1 


1 








-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 f 86 JTPA FUNDS 



Funds ($) 


RVTS 


CTY/IND 


COMPHS 


CC 


250,001-500,000 


1 


1 





1 


100,001-250,000 








2 


1 


50,001-100,000 


1 








3 


10,001-50,000 


1 


3 


1 


1 


5,001-10,000 








1 





1-5,000 














-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 . 

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 Exis t 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- 2 1 

-3- 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 Membershi p 
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 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. 'Literacy 1 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 comment 1 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 






































1 


1 











1 





2 


1 


1 








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 



































1 


1 





2 


1 


1 





2 


1 














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 





COMPHS 



O 


1000+ 










501-1000 




















251-500 




















51-250 


1 











2 


1 


11-50 


1 














1 


1-10 

















1 


-0- 


10 











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 





1 








$100,001-250,000 














$50,001-100,000 


1 








2 


$10,001-50,000 





3 








$5,001-10,000 














$1-5,000 














-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- 







1 
1 





10 








10 




1 
1 
1 
1 

4 


1 


1 
1 



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- 






1 


1 





10 








10 




1 

1 


7 





1 




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 

9 
8 
6 




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 

6 
4 
4 
3 
1 




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 . 

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