Volume V

Perkins is different from the other Acts reviewed here because most of its funds
are targeted on school districts, schools, vocational programs, and postsecondary
institutions, rather than on individual clients. There are no student eligibility
requirements for participation in Perkins-funded programs. Rather, a
disproportionate share of funds is allocated to educational institutions (e.g.,
districts, community colleges) in which special needs students are concentrated.

Under the Perkins Act, the Office of Vocational and Adult Education in the U.S.
Department of Education makes grants to the states for education services and
activities. State education agencies administer these programs and must establish
a state council to coordinate planning. Usually the council is a State Council of
Vocational Education (SCOVE), but as of July 1, 1993, states may use the State
Human Resource Investment Council (SHRIC) established under the Job
Training Partnership Act for planning and coordination activities.

The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), as amended in 1992, provides training
and employment services for economically disadvantaged youth and adults.
JTPA is perhaps the most complex of the programs, with a number of different
titles:

Title II, 8% Set-Aside for Education Coordination, provides funding for states
to coordinate education and training services. This program is discussed
in more detail in the section on federal coordination.

Title I-A, Adult Training Progrant, provides for training and services for the
disadvantaged and others who face significant barriers to employment.
Most participants must be economically disadvantaged, and at least 65
percent of them must have an additional barrier to employment such as
being deficient in basic skills or a schoo! dropout.

Title H-B, Summer Youth Employment aud Training Program, provides job
and training services for economically disadvantaged youth during the
summer. Participants are individuals aged 14 through 21 who are
economically disadvantaged or who are eligible for free meals under the
National School Lunch Act.

Title H-C, Youth Training Progrant, is designed to improve disadvantaged
youths’ long-term employability. Participants are normally aged 16
through 21 years, but in-school youth aged 14 and 15 may participate if
provided for in the state’s job training plan.

Title II, now the Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustinent Assistance Act,
provides employment and training assistance for dislocated workers.

Title 1V authorizes federal programs for Native Americans, migrant and
seasonal workers, and veterans.

52 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs

G3


Volume V

Table A-3.1 (continued)
Comparison of Legislative Requirements for

Essential Elements of Employment Training Programs

JOB OPPORTUNITY AND BASIC

SKILLS (JOBS) TRAINING
PROGRAMS,
FEATURE WAGNER-PEYSER (FAMILY SUPPORT ACT)
(Continued) (Continued)
Purpose To place persons in employment by To provide applicants and recipients of

providing placement related services
without charge to job seekers and to
employers. Activities include: (1) work
test requirements of the state
Unemployment Insurance (UI) system; (2)
services for handicapped persons; (3)
migrant seasonal farm workers programs;
(4) priority services to veterans; (5) alien
labor certification; (6) Target Jobs Tax
Credit (T]TC) certification; (7) Trade Act
programs; and (8) state and local labor
market information.

Aid of Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) with education, job training, and
work activities that will help them avoid
long-term welfare dependence and achieve
self-sufficiency. Services must include (1)
high school or equivalent; (2) basic and
remedia} education; (3) English as a
Second Language; (4) skills training; (5) job
readiness; (6) job development and job
placement; and (7) at least two of the
following: group and individual job
search, on-the-job training, community
work experience or other approved work
experience, or work supplementation,
Child care and other supportive services
needed to permit participation must also
be provided.

Administrative
Auspices

Employment and Training Administration
(ETA), U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
nationwide federal-state network of 2000
local Employment Service (ES) Offices
funded t

ETA and each state.

rough grant agreements between

‘Administration for Children and Families
(ACF), U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS). State IV-A
agencies, Indian Tribes, and Alaska Native
organizations.

Fiscal Year

10/1 - 9/30

10/1 -9/30

Program Year

7/1- 6/30

State program year, or federal fiscal year.

ning Cycle

ES operates an annual planning process.
Preliminary planning estimates are
provided to the states no later than 3/15.

Plans must be submitted at least every two
years. Plans must be submitted to the
Governor for review and approval; to the
State Job Training Coordination Council
(SJTCC) and the state education agency for
review and comment at least 60 days
before submittal to DHHS.

Reporting,
Requirements

(Quarterly reports are prepared by states
and submitted to DOL, Reports contain
information on client demographics,
services provided, and number of job
listings received.

(Continued)

Financial and statistical program reports
including quarterly program participation,
child care assistance, and aid to never-
married minor parents, quarterly financial
reports, annual report of target groups
expenditures, and Tribal JOBS quarterly
Report.

(Continued)

(Continued)

127

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs



Volume V

Table 1.6
Ten Most-Often-Selected Uses of Title II-C Funds, FY 93:
Districts With Individual Grants, Urban Districts, Districts in Consortia, and
Postsecondary Institutions

Percent Indicating Some Title II-C Funds
Used in Category
Districts
With Urban
Individual | School | Districtsin | Postsecondary
Use Category Grants Districts | Consortia Institutions
Staff development for 68 85 85 61
vocational-academic
integration
Other staff development 58 80 65 a
Other efforts to integrate 62 74 71 62
academic and vocational
education
Purchase of occupationally 82 88 67 77
related equipment
Purchase of vocational 81 90 72 73
curriculum materials
Purchase of materials 76 88 67 73
(computers, software,
curricula) for learning lab
or other remedial
programs
Curriculum development or 75 81 72 67
modification
Support services for special 60 81 53 87
population students
Career counseling or 68 76 69 81
guidance
Development of tech prep 50 76 55 a
Hiring vocational staff (other a a ° 70
than special populations
coordinator)
Remedial courses a a a 60

ANot one of ten Most commonly selected uses.

Sources: 1993 Followup Surveys of Schools Districts and Postsecondary Institutions.

18 Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds


COT

(€661) AaueyD :991n0g

Zt 8'Sz sv T6e Ct OLE 8Z OSE ueqify

1% Zo oc LOE st LOE sv 98E ueqingns

tal ¥6 61 a1 1@ ce be SIS ean
uoRLZTULGAN Jo JaAa]

PE 6FL Se est ev PIE le LP 26-1661 UT papuny ION

TL 9OL Zt PCE el Ze 07 veb 76-1661 UI pepuny
snyeys Surpung supplag

“Zt 19% at OE rs o8E St Vee asiey

61 UPL 97 O'8z St S6e te LSE Luntpayy

La OO 1Z Te 9% Tle OE GES ews
azis juau]josuq

Las 0% CZ 6S cae Usb Las 98L TeUOQBIOA,

TL 6bL Lal 6Sz ras LYE st OSb aensay
yooyps jo add,
Ot 6ST el £8e TL Se ZU ber TRIOL

Joua aqeurnsy Joqa ayeuryysy Joa ayeunnysy Joua ayewnsy
prepueis prepurys prepuris prepuris
wa[qord snorias 75-1661 ax0j9q ssa20e C6-166L dysl1a}DeILYD [OOYIS
BSI sjuaU]joIUa we180id daid-ypa} Jenba Surinsse uo Y8nomM} 88-2861
JeuoHeoOA oyur Zuprayua juacieg | aouepin8 uo sapraoid Woy yuauT[orUa
Sutureyureur P]1}STp Jey] aduejsisse | UOTeINpea [euoT}Rd0A
yeu) Sunjrodar yuaorag Ul aseaiout ayeiapour | UT ssaj 10 %G jo asUeYyD
Bunsodai quaciag Sunjiodas uaoiag

sjooypg Arepuosag wory payda]]o_ bye JJ sIOIIY prepuLygs payda[ag

OL PGEL

er
ro)
a

Technical Appendix

T-12



Data Collection

The surveys were administered from March to October, 1992. Thus, most surveys
were completed at the end of the first year of implementation of the 1990 Perkins
Act, with a very few completed at the beginning of the second year of
implementation.

The data collection involved multiple (mass and individual) mail-outs, followed
by extensive telephone efforts to retrieve data. Final response rates exceeded 70
percent for all surveys except the secondary school survey, which had a response
rate of 69 percent (Table T.2). A major reason for this lower response rate for
secondary schools was that data retrieval extended into the summer, at which
point many school respondents could not de reached.

Weighting and Reliability of Estimates

The census surveys did not require weighting, as all cases were selected with
certainty. This includes the two state administrator surveys, the vocational
district survey, and the two-year public postsecondary institution survey. The
remaining surveys were weighted as described below.

Basic Sampling Weights

The basic sampling weights for regular districts and schools (the only entities
needing weighting) were the reciprocals of their overall selection probabilities.
Because the sample of regular districts was split in two, with each half receiving
a different questionnaire, additional weights were created for estimating national
totals for those questions where only a half-sample was available.

Nonresponse Adjustments

The validity of survey estimates depends on the degree to which nonrespondents
are systematically different from those who responded. To determine the
potential for nonresponse bias, information on the sampling frames was used to
determine which classification groups were least likely to respond to the surveys.

For both vocational districts and postsecondary institutions, large districts /
institutions were somewhat more likely to respond than those with small
enrollments. Since district/institution size is related to Perkins funding, there
may be some tendency for unfunded districts and institutions to be under-
represented, and for those policies that are associated with Perkins funding to be
overrepresented in unadjusted data.

Vocational districts also had lower response rates (71%) than regular districts
(85%). However, given the relatively small number of vocational districts and

Louk
Technical Appendix 17



ED 371 195

FINAL REPORT |
TO ——
CONGRESS

VOLUML \V’

FUNDING ~
, AND
\DMLENISERAELON ISSUES 5

CECE66679



Volume V

Table A-3.1

Comparison of Legislative Requirements for
Essential Elements of Employment Training Programs

FEATURE

CARL D. PERKINS VOCATIONAL
AND APPLIED TECHNOLOGY ACT

REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973

Purpose

To make the United States more
competitive in the world economy by full
development of academic and
occupational skills of all segments of the
population. The purpose is to be achieved
y improving educational programs that
lead to academic and occupational skill
competencies needed to work in a
technologically advanced society

To develop and implement, through
research, training, services, and guarantee
of equal oppartunity, comprehensive and
coordinated programs of vocational
rehabilitation and independent living for
individuals with disabilities in order to
maximize their employment,
independence, and infegration into the
work place and the community. Title |
provides vocational rehabilitation (VR)
services to persons with disabilities,
consistent with their strengths, resources,
priorities, concerns, abilities, and
capabilities, so that such persons may
prepare for and engage in gainful
employment.

Administrative
Auspices

Office of Vocational and Adult Education,
US. Department of Education (ED). Grants
are made to state education through
secondary, post-secondary, and adult
‘cational education programs, services
and activities,

Rehabilitation Services Administration,
U.S. Department of Education.

Fiscal Year 7/1 -6/30 10/1 - 9/30
Program Year 7/1 -6/30 10/1 -9/30
Planning Cycle | Plans are due to ED every two years, with | Planning cycle may be any time interval

annual revisions as necessary at the option
of the state. The planning period must be
the same as under the Job Training
Partnership Act.

that allows the state to coordinate its
vecational rehabilitation plans with plans
required under other legislation, as long, as
the cycle does nol exceed three years.

Reporting Annual report for ED due 9/30. Annual report including details about
Requirements clients served and types of services

provided, including types of rehabilitation

technology services provided.

(Continued) (Continued)
(Continued )
ta}
123

A-12 Coordinating Vocational Edu

ication and Federal Job-Training Programs



Volume V

Differing Definitions and Administrative Rules

Although target groups and services are duplicated across these programs, the
administrative requirements rarely are. In 1993 testimony to Congress, the
General Accounting Office noted that differing administrative rules, such as
planning cycles, accountability, and data collection requirements all serve as
significant barriers to coordination.'* These conflicts do occur in the programs
analyzed in this report:

. The fiscal year is the same for all programs (October 1 through
September 30) except for Perkins, which uses a fiscal year of July 1
through June 30, and the Apprenticeship Program, which has no
fiscal year or program year.

. The program year is usually the school year (July 1 through June
30), except in the Vocational Rehabilitation, JOBS, and JTPA’s
summer youth program. :

. Almost every program has a different planning cycle.

. Most programs require annual reports, but some (Wagner-Peyser
and JOBS) require quarterly reports.

GAO found that the 125 employment and training assistance programs it
reviewed had varying definitions of the programs’ target groups. For example,
the definition of “economically disadvantaged” may include any or all of the
following factors for program eligibility: level of income, ability to pay, welfare
status, and residency in a depressed area.

GAO concluded that these variances served as a significant barrier to
coordination because they created confusion among programs that served the
same target populations and also barred some programs from serving the same
target groups. Finally, GAO found that coordination is hampered by fragmented
control of funds. Some programs give control to state administrative agencies
while others give control to local administrative agencies or even local service

. providers. GAO also described coordination among the myriad programs as
being difficult because “funding channels resemble a sieve rather than a
funnel.’”15

More detailed information about the definitions and administrative rules of each
of these programs is summarized in Appendix Table A-3.1.

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Prograiis 61

at
tv


(¢661) Aauryd :aaanog

oF POS 6e 8°89 Oe ele ve O9OL ueqin)
99 oe Ls OE os Ly os Tle ueqingns
8z Sr 18 ost 92 LO LP Ose feng
uoHeziuegin jo [3.43]
6€ Sst v9 Vel tO OTs es Tee 76-1661 WI papuny JON,
6E PPE x4 96% 6e ocr 9E ose 76-66 Ul papuny
snjeys Surpung suryieg
le 709 oS FL Oz OE bP LPL agiey
o€ esp 6S CIE Le Ose tr Lexa wuntpay,
st vO e€ €OL £8 crs cs 6% Tews
. azis juaurjorug
<4 £60 x4 574 67 esp Te k%4 ToL
JOM aqeunysg Joa aqeusy Joule aqyeuysy Joule aqeunsy
piepurys paepuris, prepurys piepurys
sdo-09 10 surez80id Jeuores0a wialqoid syuapnjs payqesip [ye oNSLa}DwILYD JD1I}SIq]
sdiysusayur 8urpraosd | ut pajjorua syuapnys ou SI sjuapnys 0} UOT]UAaze [ENPIATpur

UT JUaUTaAToAUT Jofeur
Suraey Aysnpuy pue
ssaursng IM yuaciag

qyuapyorg ysyisugq
pair] ym yuacieg

spaau yeiads yonaysut
0} pautey] srayovay
yeuoneooa Butpuny

jeuy Sunsodaz juaszag

Jao 10 BulJoNy
aptaoid yey) suresZ01d
JeuOTROOA UT sjuapnys
Palqesip YIM quadieg

SPIYsI [ooyrg Arepuodag Y uoIsiaA 105 A[UC pa}raT[OD Be 10} si0IIY prepuL}s pa}D2[25

PL PqeL

Technical Appendix

T-10



Volume V

a SHRIC, the state council could not continue to serve as “an independent critic
of vocational education providers and administrators,” or to serve their specific
target populations. In some cases, these may be legitimate concerns. However,
too often agency administrators are fighting what they perceive as a threat to
their power because the changes might diminish their budget, personnel
strength, access to the governor, or independence from direct oversight.

In many states, an administrative body performs many of the same functions as
SHRICs but does not meet the JTPA definition. Increasingly, states are embracing
the concept of a supercouncil — one agency with authority over all vocational
education and job-training programs in the state. By the end of 1993, almost half
of the states had such an agency:

° In 1992, 13 secondary vocational education state agencies and 9
postsecondary agencies reported in the Omnibus Survey that they
participate in a super agency of some kind.

. In 1993, 22 secondary vocational education state agencies either had
a SHRIC or another type of super agency “that coordinates services
such as those funded by Perkins, JTPA, etc.,” and 15 postsecondary
agencies reported participating in a super agency that coordinates
“the operations of different Federally-funded education and
training programs with each other, or with related state programs.”
(See Table 3.5.)

Whether a supercouncil fits the legislative definition of a SHRIC probably makes
little difference. Alt found a number of positive actions taken by “quasi-
supercouncil bodies or by groups of staff people working independently of a
supercouncil.” For example, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland,
and Iowa took steps toward greater integration of services before a supercouncil
was created.”

In almost all (20) of the supercouncils reported by the secondary state directors,
the state agency responsible for vocational education was represented on the
council (at both the secondary and postsecondary levels). Secondary-level
members were represented on 17 of the councils and postsecondary members
on 13. Table A-3.5 in the appendix shows the representation of the various
groups and individuals.

Alt found that states with a supercouncil “generally started by establishing a
commission or task force to investigate the existing workforce development
system and to conduct an overall needs assessment. This investigatory body was
then authorized as a council, either by executive order, state law, or both (with
the law enacted to ensure continuity).”*8 About 30 states have some type of state
advisory board to coordinate employment, vocational education, and
occupational training policy and planning, according to 1993 data from the U.S.

72 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs
®
53



Volume V

DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS WITHIN DISTRICTS

The 1990 Act provides guidance on the allocation of funds within school districts
and postsecondary institutions, a topic not touched on in previous legislation.
Among the requirements are the following:

¢ Funds are to be spent in a limited number of sites or in a limited number
of program areas,

* Priority is to be given to sites or programs serving “the highest
concentrations of individuals who are members of special populations,”

¢ Funds are to be spent on programs that “are of such size, scope and
quality as to be effective,”

¢ The schools in which the federal funds are spent must provide services
(with state and local funds) that “are at least comparable to services being
provided in schools. . .which are not receiving. . funds.”

These provisions are designed to ensure that localities give special population
students first priority in funding decisions, without jeopardizing the ability of the
schools or programs receiving federal funds to claim other funds as well. The
provisions also seek to ensure that funds are spent in a manner sufficiently
concentrated to make a difference.

These rules apply to school districts and postsecondary institutions receiving
individual grants; the legislation does not specify comparable within-grantee
allocation rules for consortia (which encompass 72% of secondary districts). The
regulations indicate that consortia are to operate joint projects (“of sufficient size,
scope and quality”) providing services to all LEAs that belong, with equitable
participation of special populations. The rules also prohibit subgrants within
consortia to individual districts. Neither the law nor regulations anticipated the
allocation situation that developed — that consortia awards would be larger, on
average, than awards to individual LEA grantees, and that a typical consortium
would encompass more than seven districts. Given the numbers of participating
districts, the choices consortia make about which districts /students to serve and
what programs to support are of greater consequence than originally imagined.

Suballocations in School Districts With Direct Funding

At the secondary level, most districts with individual Perkins grants report that
they offer Perkins-funded services at the district level as well as allocating
resources to specific schools or programs. When allocating funds within districts,
officials consider the need of a school or program for funds as well as its special
population concentrations. There is little evidence that the Perkins requirement
to give priority to schools or programs with the highest concentrations of special

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds

19



Bishop, J. (1993a). Educational Reform and Technical Education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University,
Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.

Bishop, J. (1993b). Incentives to Study and the Organization of Secondary Instruction (Working Paper
93-08). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.

Bishop, J., & Carter, S. (1990). The Deskilling Versus Upskilling Debate: The Role of BLS Projections
(Working Paper 90-14). Philadelphia, PA: Center for Advanced Human Resource
Studies.

Bishop, J., Blakemore, A., & Low, S. (1985). High Schou! Graduates in the Labor Market: A Coniparison
of the Class of 1972 and 1980. Columbus, OH: National Center for Research in Vocational
Education.

Blood, P., & Burnham, L.H. (1994). Meeting the Vocational Education Needs of Native Americans.
Draft report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education.
Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Federal Research Division.

Brady, E., & Balfe, K. (1987). JTPA Operations at the Local Level: Coordination or Discord?
Washington, DC: National Alliance of Business.

Brush, L., Traylor, K., & O'Leary, M. (1993). Assessment of Training and Housiig Needs Within
Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions: A Description of Facility and
Housing Needs and Five-Year Projection for Meeting Facility and Housing Needs. Washington,
Dc: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning.

Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1995 (1994). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

Burnharn, L.H., & Miro, RJ. (1994). Meeting the Vocational Education Needs of the Correctional
Population. Report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education.
Washington, DC: Library of Congress.

Campbell, P.B., & Basinger, K.S. (1985). Economic and Noucconomic Effects of Alternative Transitions
Through School to Work. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Nationa! Center for
Research in Vocational Education. (ED 254 638)

Campbell, P.B., Basinger, K.S., Dauner, M.B., & Parks, M.A. (1986). Outcomes of Vocational
Education for Women, Minorities, the Handicapped and the Poor. Columbus, OH: National
Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Campbell, P.B., Elliot, J., Laughlin, S., & Seusy, E. (1987). The Dynamics of Vocational Extucation
Efforts on Labor Market Outcomes. Columbus, OH: National Center for Research in
Vocational Education.

Cantor, J.A. (1991). The auto indus'ty’s new model: Car companies and community colleges
collaborate to provide high-technology training, Vocational Education Journal, 60(7), 20-29.

Cappelli, ”. (1993). British Lessous for School-to- Work Policy in the U.S. Working paper, University
of Pennsylvania, National Center on the Educational Quality of the Workforce

Cappelli, P., & Rogovsky, N. (1993), Skills and ludividual Performance. Philade!phia: University of
Pennsylyania, National Center on Educational Quality of the Workforce.

R4 National Assessuient of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress

PAE)



Volume V

Table A-3.1 (continued)
Comparison of Legislative Requirements for
Essential Elements of Employment Training Programs

JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT

Title II-C
Youth Training Program
FEATURE (Continued)
Eligibility Individuals age 16 through 21 who are

economically disadvantaged are
participating in a compensatory education
program under Chapter 1 of the

lementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965; or are eligible for free meals under
the National School Lunch Act during the
most recent school year. May serve 14-15
year old in-school youth if provided for in
the job training plan. Not less than 50% of
the youth participating must be out-of-
school. Not less than 65% of participants,
whether in-school or out-of-school, must
have an additional barrier to employment.
These barriers include basic skills
deficiency, pregnancy or parenting,
disability, homelessness, runaway, oF
offenders. A barrier for in-school youth is
educational attainment of one or more
grade levels below the grade appropriate
to their age. For out-of-school youth the
additional barrier is high-schoal dropout
status.

Primary Service
Providers:

Community-based organizations,
proprietary schools, private firms, and
jabor unioi

Primary Service
Delivery System

Service delivery areas established by the
states.

Primary
Decision-Making
Entity

Local service delivery areas determine
which services to provide and who will
provide them. Federal government
specifics eligibility requirements and
performance standards.

ba
i>)

to

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs

A-21



Volume V
Table A-3.8
Other Formal/Informal Arrangements for Coordination
Reported by Secondary State Agencies, 1992
Percent of

Mechanism Used Percent of Secondary Postsecondary

State Agencies State Agencies
None 11 34
Other planning activities 46 43
A superagency of some kind 24 19
Targeting of funds 44 32
Decisions about what services to provide 58 38
Decisions about priorities among target groups 49 40

Sources: Omnibus Surveys of Secondary and Postsecondary State Directors

Table A-3.9 .
Other Postsecondary State Agency Policies
Intended to Encourage Cooperation, 1992 and 1993

Percent of
Postsecondary State Agencies

Policy Used 1992 1993

None 23 NA

Encouragement of flexible programs 71 82

Funding of assessment/remediation/counseling 50 0
centers

Funding of “one-stop” education and training centers 33 50

Sources: Omnibus Surveys of Secondary and Postsecondary State Directors and the 1993
Followup

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs A-27



that was originally selected for a visit did not participate, because of an
irresolvable scheduling conflict. It was replaced by another program similar in
terms of region, urbanicity, and educational level.

Site visits lasted four to five days for teams consisting of two site visitors. Each
team included one Native American who was highly knowledgeable about
cultural issues, including factors that might affect cooperation by tribal
representatives or influence the quality of interview data.

The goal of the site visits was to determine issues affecting delivery of vocational
education, attitudes about the Perkins program, and involvement in the program
by a wide array of stakeholders. With that goal in mind, each site visit team
scheduled interviews with tribal leaders, educational program administrators,
academic and vocational teachers, counselors, students, and employer
representatives. All interviewers used a preset schedule of interview questions.
Follow-up questioning and observations were also used to explore unique
aspects of each program.

Most individual interviews lasted about one hour, with one or both visitors
interviewing each respondent in his or her office or classroom. Researchers also
conducted group interviews with students and with some teachers. At all
locations, the site visitors spent several hours with the directors of the Perkins-
funded vocational programs and visited as many vocational classes as possible.

Further information on the tribal case studies is available in Hudis (1993).
STATE RECORDS DATA COLLECTION

As mentioned above, the data on Perkins funding amounts obtained from the
Omnibus Survey were problematic. Since these data are of critical importance in
addressing a number of Congressional concerns regarding the Perkins Act, the
National Assessment sought another, more reliable source of funding
information.

The National Center for Research in Vocational Education (NCRVE) provided
this source. In 1992, the NCRVE, in cooperation with the National Association of
State Directors of Vocational and Technical Education and the National
Assessment of Vocational Education, collected administrative record data on
local Perkins funding allocations directly from state agencies.

To collect these funding data, the NCRVE sent a letter to each state director of
vocational education requesting a copy of their secondary and postsecondary
Perkins funding allocations, and the formula or rules used to make allocations
under the 1990 Perkins Act. State directors in all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the six U.S. territories that receive Perkins funds were contacted,

Technical Appendix T-47

v2
fw)
ra


The 1990-91 public school sample was selected from the 1988-89 Common Core
of Data universe list maintained by NCES. All public schools in the file were
stratified by the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and then by three grade
levels (elementary, secondary, and combined). A special sample of schools
serving large numbers of American Indian or Alaskan Native students was also
drawn to provide national estimates of their schools, teachers, and principals.
Due to confidentiality restrictions, the supplemental sample of American Indian
and Alaskan Native institutions was not included in our analyses.

Teachers were sampled from within selected schools, with an average of three to
nine teachers sampled per school (depending on school type). The samples were
drawn from lists of teachers supplied by the selected schools. The SASS data
were collected from December 1990 to June 1991, using two survey mail-outs and
telephone followups.

Defining Teachers

The teacher sample used for our analysis was restricted to public scheol teachers
in grades 9-12. From this sample, special education teachers were identified as
those reporting that 50 percent or more of their courses are special education.
Vocational teachers were then defined as those reporting that 50 percent or more
of their courses are in vocational education. Vocational courses were defined
using the categories listed on the SASS Public School Teacher Questionnaire,
which includes agriculture, business and marketing, industrial arts, health
occupations, vocational and nonvocational home economics, trade and industry,
technical, accounting /bookkeeping, shorthand, typing, career education, and
“other” vocational education. In contrast to the vocational teachers in the
National Assessment of Vocational Education Teacher Survey, the vocational
teachers in this sample include those teaching non-occupational vocational
courses. All remaining teachers were identified as non-vocational,
non-special-education teachers (academic teachers).

In cases where course load responses were not provided, teachers’ reports of the
subject they teach most often were used to classify teachers as special education,
vocational, or academic. [t is important to note that teachers who primarily
provide vocational training to special education students, but who consider
themselves special education rather than vocational education teachers, are not
included in the sample of vocational teachers.

Data Limitatious

While the SASS provides a reliable, nationally representative sample of
vocational and non-vocational teachers, it has two major drawbacks for our
purposes. First, the SASS does not include data on whether teachers have
non-teaching work experience ina field related to their teaching position, which
is an important aspect of vocational teachers’ qualifications. Second, the SASS
does not consistently distinguish between occupational and non-occupational

T2326 Technical Appendix

190



vocational education. NCRVE% found the most common purposes to be:

(1) funding innovative collaboration;

populations;
(3) funding welfare-to-work programs;

(4) supporting economic development activities;

standards; and

(6) providing a share of the funds to educational institutions.

Volume V

determined that states and localities use 8 percent set-aside funds for a variety of
purposes, most, but not all, related to enhancing coordination between JTPA and

(2) funding experimental approaches and programs for hard-to-serve

(5) covering administrative expenditures and meeting performance

Virtually all of these efforts, with the possible exception of administrative
expenditures, appear to be well within the discretionary intent of the set-aside
provisions. State policies clearly support the larger federal intent of a flexible,

innovative program to encourage agency collaboration.

Eligibility. One factor that may make coordination more difficult is the type of
institutions to which states offer set-aside funds. For example, if only Service
Delivery Areas are eligible, then LEAs and postsecondary institutions will not be

as motivated to attempt new coordination efforts. Vocational education

providers are eligible to receive JTPA set-aside funds in most states: More than
three-fourths of the state directors of secondary vocational education reported
that individual LEAs are eligible to receive 8 percent set-aside funds, and almost
as many reported that community colleges or other postsecondary institutions
are eligible. About one-half of state directors report that individual SDAs are

eligible to receive the funds, and one-third report that consortia of SDAs
educational institutions are eligible (see Appendix Table A-3.2).

and

Actual Allocation. Although various types of institutions are eligible to receive 8

percent set-aside funds, the actual allocation of the funds may look quite

different from the distribution of eligible institutions. In the Omnibus Survey,

state directors were asked to indicate the percentage of 8 percent set-asid’

e funds

allocated to each type of recipient (see Appendix Table A-3.2). The responses
indicate that, in the average state, the largest amounts are allocated to SDAs (who
may, in tum, contract with other providers). LEAs rank a close second, followed

by community colleges, with much smaller amounts going to consortia.

Therefore, the most obvious method of forcing joint service delivery — through
allocation to consortia — is comparatively rare. Bailis and Grubb interpret these
data to indicate that 8 percent set-aside funds are often used “simply to augment

73

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs

67


Volume V

mental services. Case study districts, most of which are relatively large, appear to
be using Title II-C funds for instructional and counseling staff more than for
equipment. Their equipment purchases are likely to be for computers and
software in learning labs that offer remediation as well as career assessment and
guidance.

Roughly 60 percent of districts say that all needed supplemental services are
provided; roughly 40 percent say that these services are provided only insofar as
federal funds permit.

Postsecondary institutions report that supplemental services for special
populations and career guidance and counseling are the most likely uses of at
least some of their II-C funds. This difference from secondary recipients of basic
grant funds may not reflect actual differences in services available to special
needs students at each level, however, because special needs students in
secondary schools receive many support services outside of vocational
education. Further, it is important to remember that Perkins funds account for
extremely small shares of occupational funds at both levels. At most, the uses of
Perkins funds show how districts and institutions spend resources at the margin.

The findings about within-state and within-district basic grant allocations and
expenditures lead to a number of specific recommendations for consideration by
federal policymakers. They include:

(1) Specifying the role of consortia at secondary and postsecondary levels. The
1990 Act and subsequent regulations anticipated that consortia would be used
primarily fora limited purpose — to enable very small school districts to
band together, obtain relatively small grants, and operate joint projects.
Actual consortia are large in dollar terms and involve many districts,
although consortia account for only about 35 percent of basic grant funds at
the secondary level. Given their size (and findings about grant
suballocations within participating members), it is important to spell out
the conditions under which consortia should be formed and operate. It
should be emphasized that consortia cannot be bookkeeping entities
established by states in order to move resources among districts or
institutions independent of the within-state formulas. This issue takes on
even greater importance now that the consortium provision has been
extended to the postsecondary level.

(2) Reconsidering the concept of targeting by program within multischool
districts. At first blush this appears to be a policy of symmetry — it isa
means for districts with only one secondary school (or for postsecondary
institutions) to concentrate funds in much the same way districts with
multiple schools might concentrate on particular schools. Nonetheless, this
option is also provided to multischool districts. In case study sites, all of
which had multiple schools, we saw no evidence that targeting to programs

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds 25

36


Volume V

CONCLUSION

Amidst the mass of data and information provided by the National Assessment’s
Omnibus Surveys and literature reviews, it is easy to lose sight of the big picture
and hard to separate the forest from the trees. This research, however, supports
several broad, policy-relevant conclusions.

Need for Coordination

The first is self-evident: Policymakers’ concerns about potential fragmentation
and duplication cannot be dismissed. The inherent difficulties in managing 125
separate programs are real, not imaginary; the barriers to effective service
delivery can be formidable. However, these problems should not be overstated.
With so many distinct programs offering so many services to so many similar
populations, some overlap is inevitable. Within limits, this duplication can be
helpful: No program is 100 percent effective, and several potential sources of
assistance at the local level can help ensure that fewer eligible students (youth
and adults) fall between the cracks.

Nonetheless, in the current fiscal environment, neither federal, state, nor local
governments can afford to maintain a host of uncoordinated programs, many
duplicating the work of others. Coordination, collaboration, and cooperative

planning can enhance the cost-effective delivery of programs and help ensure

that as many clients as possible receive the services to which they are entitled
and which they need

Leadership Required

The second is drawn from the analysis in this chapter: Coordination requires
hard and determined effort from public officials at each level of government. The
history and traditions of distinct programs — each eager to protect its bureau-
cratic turf amidst budget battles — implies that increased collaboration will not
become a day-to-day reality simply by wishing for it. Public officials at the
federal, state, and local levels will have to insist on cooperation and oversee its
implementation.

Cooperation at Different Levels of Administration

Third, despite the difficulties of coordination, it appears clear that, as these job-
training programs get closer to the local level and their intended clients,
cooperation becomes more visible and seems to be more effective.

Federal. At the federal level, with the exception of the 8 percent set-aside
provisions, coordination requirements have not gone much beyond encouraging
agencies to develop cooperative agreements and joint planning of one kind or
another. These requirements have, however, had the benefit of requiring separate

96 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs

107,


Volume V

of awards to secondary recipients declined by about 48 percent between the final
year of the 1984 Perkit s Act (1990-91) and the first year of the 1990 Amendments
(1991-92), as consortia were established.4 This decline is greater than the 15.7
percent decline in state vocational staff overall, suggesting that the relationship
between awards and staff may not be as strong as between dollars and staff.

Across most of the states, the range of the grants-per-staff ratio is relatively small
(Table 2.3). Twenty-nine of the 43 states for which data are available have five or
fewer secondary-level local grantees per professional employee in 1993. Only
eight states show more than 10 local grantees per professional employee, and
only four of those states have above 15. While not all professional staff are
engaged in reviewing local plans, awarding grants, monitoring implementation,
or providing technical assistance to grantees, those activities consume a
considerable portion of the time of many state vocational administrators.

Table 2.3
Awards to Local Recipients per Professional Employee Administering
Secondary Vocational Education and Changes in State Staff, 1990-93

Number of Number of

States With } States With | Number of | Number of
Number of 50% or Less Than | States With] States With
Awards per Greater 50% Decline | Increase in | Change in
Professional Number of | Decline in in Staff, Staff, Staffing
Staff Member States Staff, 1990-93 1990-93 1990-93 Unknown
Less than 1 9 0 2 6 1
1-25 8 1 2 5 0
2.6-5 . 12 3 6 2 1
5.1-10 6 3 2 0 1
10.1-15 4 3 0 0 1
More than 15 4 3 1 0 0

Sources: 1993 Followup Survey of Secondary State Directors and 1992 State Finance Records
Collection

States that experienced large staff declines between 1990 and 1993 reported more
grants per employce in 1993 than states with small declines, but the differences
were not as dramatic as the differences in federal funds per employee shown
earlier. Three of 13 states with large staff declines (50 percent or greater) reported
more than [5 grantees per professional employee in 1993.5 The median number
of grants per employee was 8.7. In comparison, only one of 13 states with smaller

32 The State Administration of the Perkins Act

43



The total sample of establishments was allocated to the 24 sampling cells in a
manner designed to obtain about 800 completed interviews with small (10-49
employees) establishments, 1,400 completed interviews with medium-size (50-
499 employees) establishments, and 800 completed interviews with large (500+
employees) establishments. In each of the three major size classes, the samples
were allocated to the detailed size classes in rough proportion to the number of
employees in the size class. The sampling rates used to select establishments
varied by size class, with larger establishments having greater chances of
selection than smaller ones. Establishments in the “high” vocational education
stratum were selected at about twice the corresponding rates of those in the
“medium” and “low” vocational education strata. Table T.11 summarizes the
distribution of the initially selected sample of 6,050 establishments by the 24
sampling strata.

Table T.11
Number of Establishments Selected for the Employer Survey, by
Size Class and Vocational Education Involvement

Vocational Education Involvement

DMI Employment High Medium Low Total
Size Class

Size unknown 64 109 34 207
10 to 19 227 314 102 643
20 to 49 291 476 125 892
50 to 99 358 467 124 949
100 to 249 512 452 186 1,150
250 to 499 255 244 106 605
500 to 999 298 252 100 650
1,000 + 533 305 116 954
Total 2,538 2,619 893 6,050

Source: Martindale; Chu, Ward, & Kraft, 1994.

The final sample contained about 500 fewer establishments than were in the 6,050
initial survey sample. Most of the loss occurred as a result of the high volatility of
this sector — establishments close, move, or merge at relatively high rates. Some
establishments were lost for other reasons (e.g., duplicates, multiple establish-
ments within a firm). The final survey sample contained 5,479 establishments.

T-22 1

1

Cc:

Technical Appendix



Volume V

collaborate in determining how vocational education can support apprenticeship
programs and by providing technical assistance workshops to state agencies.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires that states provide for interagency
cooperation among the state agencies administering a number of programs,
including JTPA and ihe Perkins Act.!2 State plans must provide assurances of
maximum use of vocational or technical training programs that already exist in
the community. States must also have a formal interagency cooperative
agreement with schools in order to provide school-to-work transition for
students with disabilities.

Wagner-Peyser Act funds can be made available to any program of the Perkins
Act or JTPA. The local Employment Service must jointly develop a plan with
each appropriate private industry council and chief elected official for the SDA.
Each local plan must be submitted to the State Job Training Coordination
Council, which certifies that the plans are consistent with the governor's
coordination and special services plan under JIPA and that the private industry
council and the chief elected official have jointly agreed to the plan.

By law, the JOBS programs must be coordinated with JTPA programs and any
other relevant employment, training, and education programs available in the
state. In addition, the State Job Training Coordinating Council must review the
state JOBS plan, and, at the local level, welfare agencies must consult with JTPA’s
Private Industry Council concerning the types of jobs available or likely to
become available in the area, and concerning arrangements and contracts for
JOBS programs.

In summary, the purposes, eligibility requirements, administrative requirements,
responsible agencies, and delivery systems for these programs are so varied that
it is not surprising to find coordination a subject of concern for many researchers,
state administrators, and service providers.

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SERVICE DELIVERY

In a 1994 review for the National Assessment, Alt!3 identified several barriers to
effective delivery of job-training services: scattered locations for service delivery;
different eligibility requirements for clients; various definitions of terms such as
income and family income, long-term welfare recipient, and displaced homemaker,
variations in program timetables; and differences in accounting procedures,
reporting requirements, and levels of review by state, regional, and national
administrators. These barriers may create unintended overlap among programs,
the kind of duplication of services that coordination can minimize.

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs 63 87


Hershey, A., & Silverberg, M. (1993). Employer Involvement in School-to-Work Transition Programs:
What Can We Really Expect? Paper for the Association for Public Policy and Management
Conference, October.

Hilton, T.L. (1971). A Study of Intellectual Growth aud Vocational Develapment: Final Report.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. (ED 056 063)

Hirshberg, D. (1991). The role of the community college in economic and workforce development,
ERIC Digest, No. JC-91-05. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Research.

Hoachlander, E.G. (1992). “Performance Standards, Evaluation, Planning, Accountability, and
Authentic Assessment for the New Vocationalism.” Unpublished paper.

Hoachlander, E.G. (1994). Torward a Curriculum Framework for School-to-Work Transition:

Transforming Vocational Education. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Educational Research and improvement.

Hoachlander, E.G., & Levesque, K. (1993). lsnproving National Data for Vocational Education:
Strengthening a Multiforni System. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in
Vocational Education.

Hoachlander, E.G., & Rahn, M. (1994, January). National Skill Standards, Vocational Education
Journal, 69(1), pp. 20 ff.

Hoachlander, E.G., Kaufman, P., Levesque, K., & Houser, J. (1992). Vocational Education in the
United States, 1969-1990 (NCES-92-669). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.

Hollenbeck, K. (1993). Postsecondary education as triage: Return to academic and technical
programs. Ecouomies of Education Review, 12, 213-232.

Hudis, P. (1993). National Assessmeut of Vocational Education: American Indian Programs. Draft

paper prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Berkeley, CA:
MPR Associates.

Hull, D. (1993). Every Student Wins: Delivering Education That Works. Waco, TX: Center for
Occupational Research and Development.

Hunter, J., & Hunter, R. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predicators of job performance,
Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.

Iuteragency Agreenient of the National Occupational Information Coordinating Counnittee. Signed by
participating members between March 19, 1990, and June 4, 1990.

Jencks, C.L., & Brown, M.D. (1975). The effects of high schools on their students. Harvard
Educational Review, 45, 273-324.

Jennings, E. T. (1993). Patterns and perceptions of employment and training coordination in the
States, In E.T. Jennings & N.S. Zank (1993), Welfare System Reform: Coordinating Federal,
State, aud Local Public Assistauce Prograits. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Jennings, E.T., & Zank, N.S. (1993), Welfare Sustent Reforni: Coordinating Federal, State, aud Local
Public Assistance Programs. Westport, CT; Greenwood Press.

eld

R-10, National Assessment of Vocational Uducation: Linal Report to Congress



The National Association of State Directors of Vocational and Technical
Education provided lists of all secondary and postsecondary state directors for
the state director surveys. The lists included 57 secondary and 57 postsecondary
state directors, covering the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the six U.S.
territories that receive Perkins Act funds.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Data System
(IPEDS), a universe listing of all such institutions, provided the sampling frame
for public two-year postsecondary institutions. The Omnibus postsecondary

survey sample included all 1,251 public two-year postsecondary institutions
listed on the IPEDS.

The Quality Education Data (QED) listing of schools and school districts,
supplemented by the U.S. Department of Education’s Common Core of Data
(CCD), provided the sampling frame for selecting public secondary districts and
schools. This combination allowed for more complete universe coverage, and
provided all variables needed for sample stratification. All 361 vocational
districts on the sampling frame were selected for the Omnibus Vocational District
Survey.

Regular districts and schools were sampled after first limiting the sample to
public districts and schools with 11th and 12th grades, then separating vocational
schools from regular schools. Schools were considered to be regular unless they
provided only vocational education, and districts were considered regular if at
least one school was regular. All 661 schools within the 361 vocational districts
were sampled with certainty, and all 469 vocational schools within the sampled
regular districts were sampled with certainty, for a total sample of 1,130 of the
1,477 vocational schools in the country.

The 11,263 regular secondary districts were sampled with probability
proportionate to a measure of size (based on the aggregate square root of
enrollments in grades 11 and 12) within each of three strata: urban, suburban,
and rural districts. Because of the small number of regular urban districts, all 465
such districts were sampled with certainty. A sample of 666 districts was selected
from the pool of 4,054 suburban districts, and 666 districts were selected from the
6,744 rural districts. The resulting sample was randomly split in half, with half of
the districts receiving one questionnaire (Version A), and the other half receiving
a (partially) different questionnaire (Version B).

In a second stage, at least one regular high school was selected from each
sampled district, with a probability based on the square root of enrollments in
grades 11 and 12. Of the 15,421 regular secondary schools, 2,000 were selected,
with 668 from urban districts, 666 from suburban districts, and 666 from rural
districts.

T-6 Technical Appendix



Volume V

17 _ The wording of the survey question leaves some ambiguity here. The question asked
respondent districts whether Title II-C resources were used to provide “district-level or
consortium-level services... .”

18 Expenditures are discussed in the next section of this chapter. Eighty-two percent of
consortia reported spending funds for specific purposes, as did 84% of all the districts
receiving basic grant funds.

19 It is important to remember that few small districts are included in the case study sites.

28 39 Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds


Volume V

Table 3.3
Comparison of Services Provided by Each Program
Program
Apprentice- | Voc. Adult
Service Perkins | JTPA ship Rehab. | Wagner | JOBS Ed.
Counseling and x x x x x
assessment
Remedial /basic x x x x
education
English as a second x x x x
language
High school education or x x
equivalency
Pre-employment/ x x x
motivational or work
maturity /job readiness
training,
Classroom vocational x x x x x
instruction
On-the-job training x x x
Customized training x
Work experience/trial x x x
employment
Job referral/labor market x x x
exchange ca
Job placement x xX x x x
Support services (child x x x x
care, transportation,
etc.)
Assistive devices/ x x x x
interpreter or reader
services
Supported employment x
60 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs

oa


using a list supplied by the National Association of State Directors of Vocational
and Technical Education.

Each state director was asked to provide records data on funding allocations
made under the 1984 and 1990 Perkins Acts. These included allocations for
1990-91 Perkins Title II Part A funds (disadvantaged, disabled, and adult
set-asides, and sex equity and single parent funds), Title IT Part B funds (for
program improvement), and Title III consumer and homemaking funds; and for
1991-92 and 1992-1993 allocations, Title II Part B funds (sex equity and single
parent funds), Title II Part C funds (basic local grants), and Title III funds for
consumer and homemaking and for tech prep.

Data collection began with the initial letters to state directors in March 1993 and
ended with final telephone followups in October 1993. The telephone followups
were used to convert non-response cases and to clarify inconsistent or incomplete
data.

Data were collected in whatever form the states could provide, and were then
edited and entered into an electronic data base. All allocations made to
institutions or organizations other than local public schools, school districts, or
postsecondary institutions were deleted from the data base. Since excluded
recipients typically received funding under only the 1984 Perkins Act, deleting
these organizations underestimates the impact of the 1990 Perkins formula in
targeting resources on educational institutions.

For some analyses, the 1990-91 Title II set-asides and program improvement
funds were combined and labeled “basic grants,” comparable to the later years’
Title II Part C basic grant funds.

A total of 47 states provided funding information, with complete basic grant
information provided by 45 states.6 Washington state was unable to supply
complete 1991-92 secondary allocations, and Virginia was unable to supply
postsecondary allocations. Some additional states were unable to provide
complete information on Perkins funds awarded through competitive grants.

The records data appear to be, in general, more reliable than the Omnibus Survey
funding data. The state records data provide the main source of funding
information for Chapters 1 and 2 of Volume V in this report. Other chapters use
the more reliable forms of Omnibus Survey funding data (as explained above).

Further information on the State Records Data collection is available in Klein et
al. (1993).

T-48 Technical Appendix

rae)
a
to



Bailey, T. (1993, April). Can youth apprenticeship thrive in the United States?, Educational
Researcher, pp. 4-10.

Bailey, T., & Merritt, D. (1993). The Schoul-to-Work Transition and Youth Apprenticeship: Le
the U.S, Experience. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation,

‘ons From

Bailey, T., & Merritt, D. (1994). Making Sense of Industry-Based Skills Standards. Berkeley, CA:
National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Bailis, L.N. (1989). Au Assessment of the JTPA Role in State and Local Coordination Activities: Report an
the Literature Review. James Bell Associates, Inc.

Bailis, L.N., & Grubb, W. N. (1993). Stamming It All Up: Lessois From the Research Literature on
Ways to Promote Coordination Between Vocational Education aud Job Training Programs. Paper
prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education, U.S. Department of
Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Baker, S. (1992). Job training 2000: A local critique. In Making Sense of Federal Joh Training Policy:
24 Expert Recommendations to Create a Comprehensive and Unified Federal Job Training System
(pp. 21-22). Washington, DC: National Youth Employment Coalition and William T.
Grant Foundation Commission on Youth and America's Future,

Ball, J., & Wolfhagen, C. (1981). Participation of Private Businesses as Work Sponsors in the Youth
Entitlement Demonstration. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

Barbett, S., Korb, R.A., Black, M., & Hollins, M.L. (1993). State Higher Education Profiles
(Combined 5th and 6th Eds.) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics,

Barro, S.M. (1992). Design for the congressionally mandated study of the formula for distributing
federal vocational education funds to the States. In Papers Presented at the Design
Conference for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Barro, S.M. (1994). The Interstate Distribution of Federal Funds for Vocational Education. Report
prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Washington, DC: SMB
Economic Research.

Barro, $.M., & Murasin, L.D. (1994, January). The Within-State Distribution of Federal Vocational
Education Funds. Draft report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational
Education. Washington, DC: SMB Economic Research.

Becker, G. (1964). Huaan Capital: A Tivoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to
Education. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bishop, J. (1989). Occupational training in high school: When does it pay off? Economics of
Education Review, 8 (1), 1-15.

Bishop, J. (1991). Lnpact of Previons Training in Schools and on Job Productivity (Center for Advanced
Human Resource Studies Working Paper 91-27). Ithaca, NY: Cornel): University.

Bishop, J. (1992). Workforce Preparedness (Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies Working
Paper 92-03). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

National Ass

pent of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress R3

£08



Volume V

agencies to at least deal with each other. Enactment in 1994 of a joint school-to-
work program, to be operated by the Department of Education and the
Department of Labor, is likely to encourage more meaningful collaboration.

On a policy level, much more than lip service to collaboration could be
accomplished, through, for example, authority to create jointly funded model
programs. Just on an administrative level, coordination would be greatly
enhanced by the simple step of agreeing on a common set of administrative
requirements to govern the major programs. Agreement on eligibility definitions,
fiscal years, reporting requirements, and planning periods would greatly
simplify the daily work of officials at all levels of government in trying to work
together.

State. The dynamic at the state level is quite different. State agencies also face the
challenge of moving beyond verbal and written agreements to genuine
collaboration. Nevertheless, federal encouragement of SHRICs combined with
the movement of state governments toward supercouncils of one kind or another
opens the possibilities for genuine improvement. Although the appearance of
these supercouncils is so recent that it is too early to assess their value
definitively, at least anecdotally several of them have made a difference.

Local. Cooperation at the federal and state levels, while desirable, would be of
limited value if it were not matched by similar collaboration locally, in the
communities actually providing services. In fact, the Omnibus Surveys and
literature reviews indicate extensive interplay between various programs and
providers — JTPA, vocational education, JOBS, community-based agencies,
community colleges, regular school districts and vocational districts.

There can be little doubt that the set-aside provisions of JTPA and the Perkins’
requirement that vocational education programs coordinate their activities with
jTPA have encouraged a variety of effective and innovative collaborative
activities at the local level.

Similarly, one-stop centers appear to be a promising innovation at the local level.
From the client’s point of view, they provide a single point of entry into an
extremely complex system. For agency staff, they make tracking the progress of
clients, and assessing the utility of related services, much easier. It seems clear
that federal encouragement of these facilities is useful as long as this
encouragement is combined with flexible authority so that localities can create
the kind of one-stop center best suited to local needs.

It may be the case that broad policy concerns about the need for collaboration do
not fully reflect the reality of how services are fashioned and delivered at the
point of client contact. That is to say that, with or without policy encouragement,
local officials have several incentives to collaborate. They have limited budgets.
They have many clients. Despite turf protection, the most energetic local officials

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs 97

103



and telephone followups. A total of 53 surveys were completed, for a response
rate of 84 percent. However, in two states that have two administrators, these
administrators collaborated and returned one survey for both; if this is taken into
account, the response rate increases to 87 percent.

Weighting and Reliability of Estimates

Since the sample was a census, the data did not need to be weighted for sampling
error, and did not require standard error estimates. The data were not adjusted
for nonresponse.

Followup Survey

To obtain the most recent data possible on key items from the Sex Equity
Administrator Survey, some items were administered to attendees of the
National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity annual conference in March 1993.
These survey items were completed by 30 administrators attending a conference
session discussing the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Since this
sample could be biased, the data from this followup should be interpreted with
caution.

CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION SURVEY

To collect information on the use of Perkins funds set aside for criminal
offenders, the National Assessment cooperated with the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) to add a series of Perkins funding questions to their
newly developed survey of state correctional education agencies and jails.

The Correctional Education Survey included three mail questionnaires sent to the
following institutions:

* Survey of State Adult Correctional Education Agencies was sent to the
51 state agencies responsible for providing education to inmates of
adult correctional facilities.

¢ Survey of State Juvenile Correctional Education Agencies was sent to
the 51 state agencies responsible for providing education to inmates of
juvenile facilities.

¢ Survey of Correctional Education at Jails was sent to the 100 largest of
the 3,000 jail facilities in the nation. Surveys had to be sent to
individual facilities because no state has centralized data on education
programs offered by jails.

‘Teelical Appendix pg T-25
é



Volume V

Table A-3.1 (continued)
Comparison of Legislative Requirements for
Essential Elements of Employment Training Programs

JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT

JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT
Title 11-B

Title I-A Summary Youth Employment
FEATURE Adult Training Program and Training Program
(Continued) (Continued)

Eligibility

Economically disadvantaged individuals,
age 22 or older. Not less than 65% of the
participants must also have one or more
additional barrier to employment. These
are: basic skills deficient, school dropouts,
recipient of cash welfare payments
(including JOBS program), offenders,
persons with disability, or homeless.
percent of participants need not be
economically disadvantaged to be eligible
if they have one or more barriers to
employment.

‘en

Individuals age 14 through 21 who are
economically disadvantaged or who have
met the eligibility requirements for free
meals under the National School Lunch
Act during the most recent school year.

Primary Service
Providers

‘Community-based organizations,

proprietary schools, private firms, and
labor unions

Community-based organizations,
pyeprietary schools, private firms, and
jabor unions.

Primary Service
Delivery System

Service delivery areas established by the
states.

Service delivery areas established by the
states.

Primary
Decision-Making
Entity

Local service delivery areas determine
which services to provide and who will
provide them. Federal government
specifies eligibility requirements and
performance standards.

Local service delivery areas determine
which services to provide and who will
provide them. Federal government
specifies eligibility requirements and
performance standards.

(Continued)

Coordin



Volume V

Table 2.7
Percent of State Postsecondary Vocational Directors Reporting Changes in
Time Devoted to Various Activities, 1990-1993

Increased | About the | Decreased

Activity or Responsibility Time Same Time Time

Development of student performance measures 84 12 2

Responsibilities concerning business /labor 58 38
partnerships.

Data collection (other than program evaluation) 56 40 4

Distribution / monitoring of federal /state funds 55 41 4
(including audits)

Coordination with state/regional economic 54 40 2
planning offices

Training /technical assistance to localities 47 47 4

Responsibilities concerning special populations 44 48 8

Professional development 4h 48 4

Evaluation of local programs 37 55 8

Local program certification /approval 24 59 6

Curriculum development or dissemination 18 56 12

State rules enforcement 16 78 2

Responsibilities concerning vocational student 12 50 8
organizations

Teacher certitication 10 42 4

Textbook review /adoption 2 28 +

NOTE: Percentages do not add to 100 across rows because not all states conduct each of the
activities.

Source: 1993 Followup Survey of Postsecondary State Directors

Increasing levels of state activity can also be seen by comparing data on specific
Perkins implementation activities from the 1992 and 1993 state surveys. In the
area of “all aspects of the industry,” where the fiterim Report showed state-level
activity to be lower than for other Perkins initiatives, the contrast is notable. (See
Table 2.9. Also see Volume If, Chapter 4.) In 1991-92, only a quarter of the
secondary state directors indicated that their offices had issued guidelines on “all
aspects” for use in developing local plans, and only 18 percent indicated that
their states had adopted definitions of “all aspects.” By 1992-93, 49 percent of the
directors indicated that their states had issued such guidelines and 39 percent

38 The State Administration of the Perkins Act


Volume V

Subcontracting with providers. Most often, JTPA and JOBS subcontract with
providers of vocational education. For example, an SDA may contract with the
local community college to enroll 125 JTPA students in the college’s associate
business degree program. According to the National Alliance of Business, 95
percent of SDAs have some financial agreement with a provider of vocational
education. #6

Services for high school students. JTPA and high schools sometimes coordinate
to enhance services to high school students, especially those at risk of dropping
out. The most common enhancement is summer employment, but some
programs also offer remediation, counseling, and reduced class sizes. With the
clients still enrolled in high school, JTPA funding is combined with regular
support through the school system.

Providing support services. Less common is the practice of using JTPA to
provide support services in colleges and technical institutes. These services —
child care, transportation, counseling, assessment, remediation, stipends — are
routinely provided by SDAs when they send their clients to vocational education
institutions.

But expenditures for support services under Title II-A are limited to 5 percent of
those funds. A recent study found that only four out of the fifteen SDAs studied
provided extensive services and one-third provided very few support services.17

Customized training. Another form of coordination can occur when educational
institutions provide customized training that includes JTPA or JOBS clients. Such
courses are typically short and so lend themselves to coordination with JTPA.
However, most institutions do not normally include JTPA or JOBS clients in these
courses, because the customized courses usually enroll only employees of the
firm sponsoring the program. In addition, customized programs are “business-
oriented” (i.e., toward the need of the firms) rather than “client-oriented” (ie.,
toward the needs of the poor or unemployed).

Pooling funds for specific purposes and institutions. In some communities,
there is systematic allocation of funds for particular services to specific
institutions. For example, the community college may provide all health-service
training, a community-based organization may provide all clerical training, and
an area technical and vocational center may provide all woodworking training.
Less frequently, the primary provider may contract, on a one-by-one basis, with
other providers to enroll individuals in programs determined by the primary
provider to be best suited to their needs and interests.

Community college administration of JTPA. Ina few states, community
colleges administer JTPA. The community college generally subcontracts with
other providers for certain services such as child care or job placement. But this
approach is also relatively rare; only 14 percent (or 128 institutions) of the public

21

so Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs



Volume V

CHAPTER 1
ALLOCATION AND USES OF PERKINS FUNDS

This chapter explores issues in the within-state allocation of 1990 Perkins Act
funds. It reviews information presented by the National Assessment in the
Interim Report! on the within-state allocation provisions of the Act and presents
findings about actual allocation practices and results.

The chapter provides additional and updated information on allocations from
states to school districts and postsecondary institutions. It then examines
allocations within school districts and postsecondary institutions, a new focus for
federal policy introduced in the 1990 Act. It also discusses how local recipients
spend federal funds. Information is drawn from three sources: (a) state-level data
on local awards to eligible recipients for fiscal years 1991, 1992, and 1993 (FY91,
FY92, and FY93); (b) responses by school districts and postsecondary institutions
to the 1993 Followup Surveys of the National Assessment; and (c) case studies of

eight school districts. (See the Technical Appendix for discussion of these data
sources.)

DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FROM STATES TO ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS

The 1990 Perkins Act tightens federal control over the distribution of federal
vocational funds by states to eligible recipients (school districts and
postsecondary institutions). First, the legislation prescribes formulas for
allocation of approximately three-fourths of the Title II-C, or “basic grant”
funds.? In previous legislation, only about a third of basic grant funds were
allocated through federally prescribed formulas.

Second, the allocation factors in the new formulas are based primarily on student
counts for other federal programs — Chapter 1 and IDEA at the secondary level,
Pell Grants at the postsecondary level — so they are not subject to the same
degree of state and local interpretation as some of the factors used in previous
formulas for within-state fund allocation.3 The intent of the new provision is to
concentrate federal resources in school districts and postsecondary institutions
with large numbers of disadvantaged and disabled students.

Third, the legislation prescribes minimum grant sizes of $15,000 at the secondary
level and $50,000 at the postsecondary level in an effort to forestall local grants
too small to aid in improving vocational education. School districts not eligible
for minimum awards are encouraged to join consortia to qualify for an award.
(A recent technical amendment has extended the consortium provision to
postsecondary institutions.)

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds 1

12



NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
INDEPENDENT ADVISORY PANEL

Carol L. Ball Laurel McFarland
Chief Executive Officer Senior Research Analyst
Ball Publishing Company The Brookings Institution
Arcanum, Ohio Washington, DC
Milton Bins Steffen E. Patko
Vice President President
Community Vision, Inc. Cross Timbers Group
Washington, DC Fort Worth, Texas
Paul Cole Darrell L. Parks
Secretary /Treasurer Director of Vocational and Career
New York State AFL-CIO Education
Albany, New York Ohio Department of Education
Columbus, Ohio
Stephen Denby
Executive Director L, Allen Phelps
Vocational Industrial Clubs of Director
America Vocational Studies Center, School of
Leesburg, Virginia Education
University of Wisconsin
James H. Folkening Madison, Wisconsin
Supervisor
Community College Services Nathaniel Semple
Michigan Department of Vice President and Secretary
Education Research and Policy Committee
Lansing, Michigan Committee for Economic
Development
James Jacobs Washington, DC
Director of Policy Research
Macomb Community College Marilyn Smith
Warren, Michigan Reading Specialist for Special Needs
Students
Edward J. Liston Tulsa Technology Center
President Tulsa, Oklahoma
Community College of Rhode Island
Warwick, Rhode Island Diane Troyer
Vice President for Academic Affairs and
E. Jeanne Lopez-Valadez Student Services
Director Harford Community College
Office of Applied Innovation Bel Air, Maryland
Northern lilinois University
Cary, Illinois Loretta Walker
Administrator, School Operations
Roger Lyons Division of Adult and Occupational
President and CEO Education
Baltimore Urban League Los Angeles Unified School District
Baltimore, Maryland Los Angeles, California



students in those districts, a higher response rate among vocational districts
would have had little effect on the overall totals.

Nonresponse biases on the regular district and school samples were minimized
through adjustments to the sampling weights. This adjustment is particularly
important when response rates are relatively low, as they were for the school
survey (which had a response rate of 69%).

The basic sampling weights were adjusted for nonresponse by dividing the
districts into 45 separate classes, based on the level of urbanization (rural,
suburban, urban), region, and district size. The basic sampling weights were then
multiplied by the ratio of the sum cf the basic sampling weights across all
districts or schools to the sum of the district or school weights for the responding
districts or schools. The questionnaire-specific weights used for items asked only
of half-samples of regular districts were similarly adjusted for nonresponse.

Standard Error Estimation

The iackknife replication procedure was used to estimate standard errors for
estimates from the regular district and school surveys. In jackknife replication, a
specified number of systematic subsamples is generated from the full sample,
and these are used to define a series of jackknife replicates by dropping one
subsample at a time from the full sample. Each jackknife replicate is then
re-weighted using the weighting procedures developed for the full sample. The
mean square error of the replicate estimates around the full sample estimate
provides an estimate of the variance of the statistic. Replicate weights were
calculated for regular districts (including separate weights for the two
half-samples) and for secondary schools.

It would have been prohibitively costly and time-consuming to calculate
jackknife-replicate standard errors for every school and district estimate
presented in the Final Report. Instead, we used the standard errors listed in
Tables T.3 through T.6 as guides for determining confidence intervals. Based on
this procedure, only percentage differences of 5 or greater are considered
meaningfully different. Where the text explicitly refers to statistically significant
Omnibus Survey findings, these are based on statistical tests using the jackknife
standard error estimates, or on the results of multiple regression procedures, for
which jackknife standard error estimates cannot be calculated. The latter tests are
likely to have a liberal bias (ie., report as statistically significant some findings
that are not).

Data Quality Issues
Nonresponse on individual questionnaire items is another potential source of

bias. For those items on which nonresponse was a significant problem, we either
did not analyze the item, or limited the way in which it was used. The most

T-8 - Technical Appendix
tr Ppe
155



Volume V

triggered by the 1990 Act, with Perkins-related activities showing the largest
gains. Roughly similar rates of increase in activities are reported at both
secondary and postsecondary levels.

In secondary agencies, state officials report increases in the time devoted toa
wide range of activities (Table 2.5).8 The activities examined range from
certifying local programs to promoting business/ labor partnerships. Of 15
activities listed in the 1993 Followup Survey, the direction of change is positive
(i.e., an increase in time is reported) for 12. State officials are most likely to report
increases in time devoted to activities directly related to Perkins initiatives. For
example, 88 percent of the secondary-level state directors report increasing time
devoted to student performance measures and 78 percent report increasing time
devoted to coordinating vocational and other educational programs.

Even in the case of the three activities for which the direction of change is toward
less state involvement, only a quarter or fewer of the state directors report actual
decreases in time spent on those activities. Ironically, while standards and
measures development is the item most often cited as an area for increased
activity, evaluation of local programs is most often cited as an area of decreased

. activity. The explanation may be that, in some states, local program evaluations
have been put on hold as the states design new performance evaluation systems.

The increases in time devoted to some activities are smaller in states with large
declines in staff, but there is no consistent relationship between staff changes and
time changes across the activities. For this analysis we divided the states into
three groups: those states that showed (a) a decline in staff of 50 percent or
greater, (b) a decline of less than 50 percent, and (c) an increase in staff. We then
looked at the responses of each of the groups for the activities showing the
greatest increase in state staff time.

States with large declines in staff between 1990 and 1993 were less likely than
others to report increases in time devoted to coordination of vocational education
with other programs and training/technical assistance to localities. (Table 2.6
shows the principal increases. For a fuller presentation of the data, see Appendix
Table A-2.1.) States experiencing any decline in staff showed less increase in time
devoted to business/labor partnerships. However, the states that reported less
than 50 percent decreases in staff actually showed somewhat greater increases in
time devoted to most activities than did the group of states with staff increases.
The differences across the three groups are not large for most activities,
however.”

At the postsecondary level, all activities except one are reported to be drawing
greater attention from state staff, although the number of states reporting
increases on many items is somewhat lower than at the secondary level

(Table 2.7). Once again, increasing time devoted to development of standards
and measures stands out dramatically, with directors in 84 percent of the states

The State Administration of the Perkins Act

46


NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION TEACHER SURVEY

The National Assessment contracted with the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) to develop and conduct a survey of vocational and academic
public secondary school teachers.

The Teacher Survey collected data on the educational and occupational
backgrounds of teachers, the nature of instruction in vocational classes, and
teachers’ perceptions of vocational education problems, using a two-page
paper-and-pencil mail questionnaire. A copy of the survey instrument and an
overview of survey findings are included in Heaviside, Carey, and Farris (1993).

Sample Selection

The Omnibus Survey sample of 3,130 public secondary schools serving grades 11
and 12 was used as the sampling frame for the Teacher Survey. A two-stage
sampling process was used to select teachers from this sampling frame.

In the first stage, a stratified sample of 395 secondary schools was drawn. Schools
in the sampling frame were stratified by type of district and type of school
(regular or vocational). Within each major stratum, schools were sorted by size
and region (Northeast, Central, Southeast, and West). The allocation of the
sample to the major strata was made in a manner that was expected to be
reasonably efficient for national estimates, as well as for estimates for major
subclasses. Schools within a stratum were sampled with probabilities
proportionate to the estimated number of teachers in the school.

Teacher Sampling

In the second sampling stage, teachers were sampled from schools. To construct
the teacher sampling frame, the 395 selected schools were asked to provide, in
spring 1992, a list of all vocational and academic teachers in specified
instructional areas. Teachers were defined by the subject area they teach most
often. Eligible academic teachers were those teaching mathematics, science,
English, social studies, and languages in the 9th to 12th grades. Eligible
vocational teachers were those who teach occupationally related vocational
education courses in the 9th to 12th grades.

Full- and part-time teachers were included in the teacher sampling frame, but
itinerant teachers, substitute teachers, and teachers of special education, physical
education, music, art, and non-occupational vocational education were excluded.
A list of 15,000 secondary teachers was compiled from this procedure, and a final
sample of 2,376 teachers was drawn, including 1,464 vocational and 912
academic teachers. Teachers were selected so as to permit separate estimates by
major subclasses, including type of teacher (vocational or academic) and type of
school (vocational or regular).

Technical Appendix T-19

173

ba 2



Volume V

(2) examine possible common objectives, definitions, measures, and
standards for such programs; and

(3) consider integration of research and development conducted
with federal assistance in the area of vocational education and
related areas, including areas of emerging technologies (Section 4).

. A requirement that the National Occupational Information
Coordinating Committee (NOICC) include representation from
various federal departments and that the associated State
Occupational Information Coordinating Committees (SOICCs)
include representatives of JTPA, vocational education, and various
other agencies (Section 422).

° A requirement that the Department of Education cooperate with
NOICC and other federal departments to assure that the vocational
education data system established by ED is compatible with JTPA,
and with other occupational demand and supply information
systems supported by federal funds (Section 421).

After reviewing existing interdepartmental activities, the Office of Vocational
and Adult Education determined that most of these mandates were already
being implemented in one way or another (see Appendix 3-A). A new Task Force
was not convened; NOICC’s membership was expanded following a new 1990
interagency agreement; and NOICC has taken the lead to improve the
cooperation of Education, Commerce, and Labor with regard to the vocational
education data system.

Set-Aside Funds

The major federal policy to encourage cooperation is the use of “set-aside” funds
earmarked for that express purpose.

As noted earlier, JTPA’s Title II 8 percent set-aside provides funding for
coordination of vocational education and job training. It has been cited as “one of
the best examples of an incentive strategy.” 3 /

Critics, however, assert that the effectiveness of the set-aside is limited by a
number of factors. Some point to institutional eligibility restrictions as a problem;
others worry about financial concerns such as allocation formulas and
disbursement methods; yet others argue that the purpose of the provision and
the types of coordination it is meant to support are not spelled out clearly in the
statute.

Use of Funds. Set-aside funds definitely encourage collaboration and
experimentation. Based on its review of several state policies, NCRVE

my
-F

66 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs



Volume V

reduce the barriers potential clients face by cross-training staff in other providers’
services, increasing clients’ accessibility to services, and eliminating duplication
of intake information and assessments.

Towa, by contrast, has begun planning an integrated management information
system. The first phase, to be completed this fiscal year, involves establishing
electronic links between existing data systems used by six different departments’
program managers (from Economic Development, Education, Elder Affairs,
Employment Services, Human Rights, and Human Services). In Phase Two,
slated for next year, a common client-intake procedure will be supported by a
single computerized form and compatible work stations. In the third year, the
fully integrated information system will enable administrators to track clients’
progress among programs, to provide comprehensive case management, and to
assess the performance of participants.

Other councils concentrate on defining needed student competencies and
rethinking assessment. The New Jersey Employment and Training Commission
is overseeing the development of competencies for vocational curricula. The
method gathers workers from various fields for a half-day meeting to discuss
what they do in their jobs. Teachers then incorporate these ideas into curricula,
with competency standards spelled out in detail. To date, competencies have
been developed for about 100 fields, and the new curricula are gradually being
implemented in schools across the state.

In Connecticut, the state Departments of Education, Labor, and Income
Maintenance have agreed on a common competencies appraisal test, which
measures employment skills (such as basic reading, math, work maturity) and
life skills (knowledge of occupations, government, health, and so on).

Ohio's council is examining the need for different performance standards for
different programs. For example, performance standards may lead one program
to push job seekers quickly into minimum-wage, dead-end jobs, while a different
set of standards might encourage longer-term training leading to better jobs. It
may be necessary to redefine program goals and performance standards. Ohio’s
council, formed last October, is just beginning to address this and other tasks.

Some councils concentrate on improving communication between the education
and business communities. Several initiatives are underway in Wisconsin to
strengthen the ties between schools and workplaces. The Wisconsin Executive
Cabinet for a Quality Workforce recently established the Office of Workforce
Excellence in the Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations, and has
won grants from the U.S. Department of Education for school-to-work
demonstration projects and from the U.S. Department of Labor for youth
apprenticeship programs.

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs

6 75

(es)


a ee

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 371 195 CE 066 679
AUTHOR Muraskin, Lana; And Others
TITLE National Assessment of Vocational Education. Final

Report to Congress. Volume V. Funding and
Administration Issues.

INSTITUTION National Assessment of Vocational Education (ED),
Washington, DC.; Office of Educational Research and
Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. Office of

Research.
REPORT NO ISBN-0-16-045242-2; OR-94-3502-V
PUB DATE Jul 94
NOTE 23lp.; For the interim report, see ED 369 929; for

other volumes in this series, see CE 066 675-678.

AVAILABLE FROM U.S. Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents,
Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328 (Stock No.
065~-000-00692-8, 5 volume set, $41).

PUB TYPE Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142)
EDRS PRICE MFO1/PC10 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS Cooperative Programs; “Coordination; Educational

Assessment; Educational Change; Educational
Development; Lducational Legislation; *Federal Aid;
Federal Legislation; *Federal Programs; Job Training;
Postsecondary Education; *Program Administration;
Program Effectiveness; Program Evaluation; *Resource
Allocation; Role of Education; Secondary Education;
State Departments of Education; *Vocational
Education -

IDENTIFIERS *Carl D Perkins Voc and Appl Techn Educ Act 1990

ABSTRACT

This document, the fifth of five volumes that
comprise the final report of the National Assessment of Vocational
Education focuses on funding and administration issues related to the
Perkins Act. Chapter 1 explores issues in the within-state allocation
of federal vocational education resources. It presents findings about
actual allocation practices and results, examines allocations from
states to school districts and postsecondary institutions and
allocations within school districts and postsecondary institutions,
and discusses how local recipients spend federal funds. Chapter 2 on
state administration of the Perkins Act examines changes in staffing
and responsibilities within state offices of vocational education, as
well as the interactions between the federal government, states, and
localities in implementing the act. Chapter 3 reviews statutory
requirements for coordination between vocational education programs
and other federal job training programs and discusses coordination
efforts at the federal, state, and local level. Endnotes follow each
chapter. Appendixes include Perkins Amendments Coordination
Provisions, charts, and data tables. A technical appendix describes
the methodology used for the major data collection efforts

contributing to the final report. A list of 276 references is
provided. (YLB)



40

4

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

S4

55

Volume V

Ibid., p. 31

Ibid., p. 12.

Ibid., pp. 18-28.

Bailis & Grubb (1993), pp. 4-9 to 4-11.
Alt (1994), p. 29.

Perkins Act, Section 240.

Bailis & Grubb (1993), pp. 4-14.

Trutko, J., et al. (1991), An Assessment of the JTPA Role in State and Local Coordination
Activities, Research and Evaluation Report Services 91-d, U.S. Department of Labor.

Grubb et al. (1989 and 1990).

Brady, E., & Balfe, K. (1987), JTPA Operations at the Local Level: Coordination or Discord?
National Alliance of Business.

Kogan, D,, et al. (1989), linproving the Quality of Training Under JTPA, Berkeley Planning
Associates and SRI International for the U.S. Department of Labor.

Grubb (1992), p. 17.
Budget of United States Government Fiscal Year 1995 (1994), U.S. Government Printing Office.

Mangum, G.L. (1992). Critiquing Job Training 2000, in Making Sertse of Federal Job Training
Policy, National Youth Employment Coalition and William T. Grant Foundation
Commission on Youth and America’s Future.

Velazquez, H. (1992), The essential elements of job training, in Making Seuse of Federal Job
Training Policy.

Pines M. (1992), The devil is the details, in Making Sense of Federal Job Training Policy.
Velazquez (1992).

Bailis & Grubb (1993).

Grubb et al. (1991), p. 8.

Bailis & Grubb (993), p.9.

Ibid., p. 12.

Ibid., p. 17.

1t2

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs 101



¢ High Plains. Located in the mountains of the west, this majority white
community is the most populous in its state. This site visit included one of
three district high schools and the local community college, the only
postsecondary institution in the county. The community has no area
vocational school within commuting distance.

¢ Riverdale. This community is a small, majority white city in a
central-midwestern state. The site visit included one of two district high
schools, an area vocational school serving students from 20 schools in 11
districts, and a vocational-technical college serving seven counties.

¢ Central Crossing. This is a small, majority white city in the same state as
Riverdale. This site visit included one of two district high schools, an area
vocational school serving 10 schools in seven districts, and a local
technical college.

¢ Flatlands. This community is in a southwestern state. Its area vocational
school is regarded as one of the best in the nation. In addition to that
school, the site visit included a one-high-school district, and a large
community college.

River Station. This majority black community is in a medium-size city
in the central United States, where formerly blue collar jobs are being
replaced by service jobs. Five of seven district secondary schools are
magnet schools. The site visit included the district’s vocational/
cooperative school and the local community college.

* Magnolia. This community is a majority-white suburb of a large
southern city. The visit included one of 16 district regular high schools as
well as one of its three vocational schools, and a technical college, one of
three local two-year institutions.

¢ Harbor View. This community is a major city in the northeast, with a
lower minority population than some major cities. The visit included one
of the district’s 12 regular high schools, its one occupational high school,
and two local postsecondary institutions.

¢ West Pacific. This is a large district in a western state. Its population is
76 percent white and 24 percent minority, primarily Hispanic and Asian.
Four of the district’s approximately 20 high schools were visited, as were
multiple facilities run by the local three-campus community college.

¢ Western Desert. This is a large community in a western state, with a
majority white population and a burgeoning economy. The site visit
included one of about 20 district comprehensive high schools, both of the

T-40

Techitical Appendix



Volume V

Table A-3.5
Persons and Organizations Represented on State Human
Resource Investment Council or Other Supercouncil, 1993

Number Represented on Supercouncil

Organization Secondary Postsecondary
State Board Members (Education) 10 9
State Agency Responsible for 20 20

Vocational/Occupational Education

SCOVE Members 17 13
District Administrators 10 9
Public Schools/Community Colleges/ Technical 15 17

Institute Administrators

Public Schools /Community Colleges/Technical 6 7
Institute Teachers/ Faculty

Local Area Council Members 10 7

Source: 1993 Followun for State Directors of Secondary Vocational Education

o>
vv

A24 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs


D>

me

eat

SIOLSIC [ooYydSs Arepuodag o1IqQng Jo Aaaing dnarojjog EGG] -224N0S

“surersoid dard-yoay yy syorystp [euOARI0A Jo o% Gz ayy UO paseq aie sasejuariag »

a Ver £6 ob OF eel v8 La ve £98 1S8M
£0 COP se TIS Zt CLL Ze Se ee Tes yinos,
OL Tee Te ry Up £69 £@ 09 gL 0'e6 equa
al ese 87 el Te OSL ee oF 61 LY6 svay oN
uolsay
6F Tle _ _ 08 99 89 oF gL elo papunj iON
eL LOE _ _ OF a 7A LT SOF Zt St Josuod YySnoryy,
60 Z9E _ > 61 904 Tl ava €0 €'56 Ap2anp papung
snqeys Surpuny supjiag
60 OSE 1x4 PCS 1@ SZ x4 F6S Ul £16 [ROL
Joa | awunsy | ioe | aumsq | Jona | ajeumsq | sone | ayewysy | soa | ayeumnsy
prepueys paepurys prepurys prepuris paepuris
payewuay are oym €6-Z66I Ur Apoarp psjuapnys €661 03 eyNoND dtwapese oAsidajVieyp y9143s1q
sjuapnys daid-yoa}_| spuny yuawaaosduat uonemndod 0661 Wor [eIaUDS pur [euoyeo0a
jo yuaorad uvay) wreiSoid suryieg Tepeds jo ut drysiapeay jo uoTeI8aqut

Sutalazal yua2Iag

yuauMda aayor
ay) saajoaut dad
~ypa} asoym yuarIag

a]e}S UT aseasoUT UR
Sunrodas yuaosag

ayy Bugouroid uo
joayja aanysod e pey

DY SUD|JEd 0661 Uy
Suniodar yuadiag

SPIYsIC [Coys [euoHL0A Wor Eeq AaAing dnMojjoy 103 s1011g prepuEys pa}r2[ag
SL qeL

Technical Appendix



FINAL REPORT
TO

CONGRESS

VOLUME V

FUNDING
AND
ADMINISTRATION ISSUES

Lana Muraskin
Debra Hollinger
James Harvey

Office of Research

Office of Educational Research and Improvement
U.S. Department of Education

July 1994


ENDNOTES

1

The discussion of the Omnibus Survey draws heavily from the Methodology Appendix in
Chaney (1993).

In the Omnibus Survey, the regular districts were divided into two groups, with one group
receiving Version A of the questionnaire and the other group receiving Version B. The
Followup Survey included only one district questionnaire, and the sample includes both
groups of districts from the Omnibus Survey.

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) is the statistical classification standard underlying all
establishment-based federal economic statistics classified by industry. See Office of ;
Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987.

This description is drawn from Hoachlander (1992).
For a detailed description of this taxonomy, see Gifford, Hoachlander, and Tuma (1989).

Alaska, New Hampshire, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia did not provide
information. None of the territories responded to the initial letter, and no further contact was
made with these territories.

Pay
Technical Appendix be 0 3 T-49


Slater, G. (1992). Principal Issues Regarding Native Americans to be Addressed by the National
Assessment of Vocational Education. In Papers Presented at the Design Conference for the
National Assessment of Vocational Education, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Spence, M. (1976). Competition in salaries, credentials, and signaling prerequisites for jobs.
Quarterly Journal of Ecoitomies, 90(1), 51-74.

Stasz, C., Kaganoff, T., & Eden, R. (1992). Integrating Academic and Vocational Education: A Review of
the Literature. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

Stecher, B., Farris, H., & Hamilton, E. (1992). Performance Measures and Staudards in Vocational
Education: A Literature Review. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

Stecher, B. & Hanser, L.M. (1993). Beyond Vocational Education Standards and Measures:
Strengthening Local Accountability Systems for Program Improvement. Berkeley, CA:
National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Stern, D. (1984). School-based enterprise and the quality of work experience: A study of high
school students. Youth and Society, 15 (4), 401-427.

Stern, D. (1990), Combining School and Work: Options in High Schools aud Tevo-Year Colleges.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult
Education.

Stern, D. (1993a). Benefits aud Costs of Working While in High School. Paper presented at the
National Center on the Education Quality of the Workforce Policy Seminar on Youth
Employment, Philadelphia.

Stern, D. (1993b). The School to Work Transition and the Relevance of Vocational Education to
Subsequent Employment. Draft report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational
Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Stern, D., Dayton, C., Paik, I.W., & Weisberg, A. (1989). Benefits and costs of dropout prevention
ina high school program combining academic and vocational education: Third-year
results from replications of the California Peninsula Academies. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis 11(4), 405-416,

Stern, D., Dayton, C., Paik, L.W., Weisberg, A., & Evans, J. (1988). Combining academic and
vocational courses in an integrated program to reduce high schoo! dropout rates: Second -
year results from replications of the California Peninsula Academies. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(2), 161-170.

Stern, D., Finkelstein, N., Stone IIL, J. R., Latting, J., & Dornsife, C. (1994). Research ou Schoal-to-
Work Transition Programs in the United States. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research
in Vocational Education.

Stern. D., MeMillion, M., Hopkins, C., & Stone, J.R. (1990). Work experience for students in high
school and college. Youth and Society, 21(3), 355-389.

Stern, D., Raby, M., & Dayton, C. (1992), Career Academies: Partnerships for Reconstructing
American High Schools, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

R18 National Assessment of Vocational Education: Final Report lo Congress

no
be ka



Volume V

59 Ibid., p. 23.

60 Ibid., p. 18.

61 Ibid.

62 Alt (1994), p. 10.

63 National Commission for Employment Policy (1991), Coordinating Federal Assistance

Programs for the Economically Disadvantaged: Reconrmendations and Background Materials
(Special Report No. 31), p.

OF Bailis & Grubb (1993), p. 4-3.
65 Bailis & Grubb (1993), p. 4-6.
66 Jennings (1993).

67 Alt (1994), pp. 32-33.

68 National Alliance of Business (1993), Building a Workforce Investment System for America.

Cited in Alt (1994), pp. 32-34.

69 Grubb (1992), p. 19.

70 Grubb & McDonnell (1991).

71 Grubb et al. (1990).

72 Grubb & McDonnell (1991), p. 50.

7 Grubb et al. (1990), p. 25.

113

102 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs



Volume V

services — 74 percent of postsecondary institutions in contrast to 45 percent of
school districts with direct grants (Table 1.8).

The second most common expenditure at the postsecendary level is career
counseling or guidance, meaning that the top two expenditure categories entail
ongoing staff costs. Purchases of equipment, curriculum materials, and materials
for learning labs are ranked next. In addition, postsecondary institutions indicate
that hiring vocational staff (such as coordinators or other specialists, teachers’
aides, or paraprofessionals) as well as supporting remedial or developmental
courses are among their ten most common uses of Perkins funds. These items are
not among the ten highest ranked items at the secondary level.

While these findings about differences between secondary and postsecondary
uses of federal funds are intriguing, their significance should not be overplayed.
In part, the differences in funding choices may reflect differences in the ways
secondary and postsecondary institutions view the boundaries of occupational
programs. At the secondary level, students are enrolled to obtain a general
education, of which occupational training may be one part. Consequently, most
instruction, including most remediation and support services, is offered (and
funded) within the context of general education. It is not viewed as the
responsibility of occupational education. Expenditures under the Perkins Act are
likely to be spent on activities linked fairly closely to the responsibilities of
occupational programs or to the students in occupational courses. The main
exception appears to be vocational assessment and career guidance.

At the postsecondary level (i.e., at community colleges and technical institutes),
students enroll to pursue various occupational or academic goals. For those who
enroll in occupational programs, the program is the general context for
education. All instruction may be seen as focused on helping the student reach
his or her occupational goal and hence all expenditures associated with program
completion may be seen as appropriate for Perkins funds. These expenditures
would include the support of general counseling and remediation.

It is also important to keep in mind that discussions of the uses of federal funds
tell us little about how school districts and postsecondary institutions support
occupational offerings as a whole. We are observing only a small piece of the
funding pie. Estimates generally hold that federal funds account for 4 or 5
percent of the costs of secondary occupational programs (there are no
comparable estimates at the postsecondary level). At most, the examination of
how recipients spend federal funds can help us understand how school districts
and postsecondary institutions use money at the margin, that is, the limited
discretionary funding provided by federal Perkins funds.

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Punds Q 4 23


USS. Bureau of the Census (1992). Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1992. Washington, DC:
US. Department of Commerce.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1993a). Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1993. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Cominerce.

U.S, Bureau of the Census (1993). LIS. Population Estimates, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin:
1980 to 1991 (Current Population Reports P25-1095). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Commerce.

USS. Department of Education (1991). America 2000: Ant Education Strategy. Washington, DC:
Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1994). National
iment of Vocational Education, Interim Report to Congress. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education (1991). Making the
Connection: Coordinating Education and Training for a Skilled Workforce. Conference
proceedings, July 8-10. .

U.S. Department of Education, Cifice of Vocational and Adult Education and Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services. Building Effective Program Linkages -- To Establish a
Coordinated Systen of Lifelong Learning for Adults with Disabilities. Undated conference
proceedings

US. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Labor, and U.S. Department
of Education. Meeting the Challenges: Coordinating to Promote Self-Sufficiency. Volume 1.

US. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (1988). Report ou Study of
Existing and Poteutial Linkages Between Apprenticeship and Cooperative Education, (ERIC
Document ED313545). New York: National Child Labor Committee.

Velazquez, H. (1992). The essential elements of job training. ln Making Seitse of Federal Job
Training Policy: 24 Expert Recommendations to Create a Comprehensive and Unified Federal Job
Training Syste (pp. 11-12). Washington, DC: National Youth Employment Coalition
and William T. Grant Foundation Commission on Youth and America's Future.

Vanfossen. B.E., Jones, J.D., & Spade, J.Z. (1987). Curriculum tracking and status maintenance,
ology of Education, 60, 104-122

Vergun, R., & Klein, S. (1994). Workplace Skill Requirements: The Upskilling--Deskilling Debate.
Draft report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Berkeley,
CA: MPR Associates.

Wagner, M. (1991). The Benefits of Secondary Vocational Education for Young People With Disabilities:
Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students, Menlo
Park, CA: SRI International. (ED 334 739)

Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., Cameto, R., & Newman, L, (1993). What Makes a Difference: Influences
ont Postsecondary Outcomes of Youth With Disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Walz, G.R. (1994). Vocational Guidance, Counseling and Assessment in Vocational Education: A
Descriptive and Evaluative Literature Review. Draft report prepared for the National
Assessment for Vocational Education. Greensboro, NC: University of North Carolina.

R-20 National Assessient of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress

aar
“ee _



Volume V

Although these centers are not universal, they are on the increase:

. In 1992, one-third of the state postsecondary vocational education
directors reported that they fund one-stop education and training
centers.

. However, by 1993, the percentage of postsecondary agencies

funding one-stop centers had risen to one-half (see Appendix Table
A-3.9).

One-stop centers, coordination of services, and co-location efforts have been used
with apparent success in several model programs (see Appendix 3-B).

Case studies indicate that one-stop centers can provide ease of access to a full
range of programs. In 1992, the National Youth Employment Coalition and the
William T. Grant Foundation Commission on Youth and America’s Future
stressed that one-stop centers are most successful when they provide
comprehensive services at one location with the support of a professional case
manager who stays with the client through training and into employment —
helping the client with family problems, health issues, day care needs, and
vocational career interest.*!

Although federal assistance may be needed to establish these centers, most
people involved in job training see federal mandates on the structure of one-stop
service as unresponsive to local needs and counterproductive to ongoing
efforts.52 They believe that one-stop service must be flexible enough to respond
to changing economic climates, to deal with loss of manufacturing jobs, to
provide workers for new industries, and to address the needs of urban
populations of unemployed youth with few skills or immigrants needing
language training. However, some service providers believe that coordination
requires enforcement by federal leadership because of the difficulty involved in
gaining cooperation among employment training, education, and social services
providers.

Local Coordination in Regular School Districts

As previously shown, JTPA is the agency with which state education agencies
most frequently coordinate. Even though JTPA services are usually designed for
adults, JTPA does have a substantial program for secondary students,
particularly those considered to be “at risk.” Since many special-population
students fall into this category, coordination with these services is of interest to
Perkins policy makers. Most regular school districts have JTPA-related programs,
but tend to serve relatively small numbers of JTPA students:

93

82 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal fob-Training Programs



Crain, R.L., Heebner, A.L., & Si, Y.P., (1992). The Effectiveness of New York City’s Career Magnet
Schools: An Evaluation of Ninth Grade Performance Using an Experimental Design. Berkeley,
CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Creech, F.R., Freeberg, N.E., Rock, D.A., Wilson, K.M., & Young, K.H. (1977). Comparative Analysis
of Postsecondary Occupational and Educational Outcomes for the High School Class of 1972.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services. (ED 139 845)

Daymont, T., & Rumberger, R. (1982). The impact of high school curriculum on earnings and
employability of youth. In R. E. Taylor, H. Rosen, & F. Pratzner (Eds.), Job Training for

Youth. Columbus: Ohio State University, National Center for Research in Vocational
Education.

Dayton, C., Weisberg, A., & Stern, D. (1989). California Partnership Academics: 1987-88 Evaluation
Report. Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education, University of California.

Dickinson, K., et al. (1988). Evaluation of the Effects of JTPA Performance Standards on Clieuts,

Services, aud Costs (NCEP Research Report 88-15). National Commission for Employment
Policy.

Downs, S. (1991). Streauiining aud Integrating Human Resources Developnient Services for Adults.
Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association.

Drake, P., & Niewenhuysen, J. (1988). Economic Growth for Australia: Agenda for Action. Committee

for Economic Development in Australia (CEDA), Monograph M88. Melbourne: Oxford
University Press.

Filipszak, B. (1992, April). Apprenticeships from high school to high skills, Training Magazine, 23-
29.

Finch, C.R., Schmidt, BJ., Oliver, ).D., Yu, K.C., & Wills, A. (1992). Course-Taking Patterns of
Vocational Teacher Education Baccalaureate Degree Recipients: Teacher Preparation, General
Education, and Teaching Content Area Studies. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research
in Vocational Education.

Finkelstein, N., & Latting, J. (1994). The Prevaleuce of Youth Apprenticeship Programs in the United
States. Berkeley, CA: University of California, National Center for Research in
Vocational Education.

Fraas, C. (1990). Proprietary Schools aud Student Financial Aid Programs: Background aud Policy Issues
(Report 90-427-EPW). Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research
Service.

Freidson, E. (1986). Professional Powers: A Study of the lustitutionalization of Formal Kuowledge.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Friedenberg, J.E. (1987). The Condition of Vocational Education for Limited Euglish-Proficient Persons.
Columbus, OH: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Friedenberg, J.E. (1993). Participation by Limited English Proficient Adults aud Out-of-School Youth in
Vocational/Technology Education: A Review of Related Literature. Draft report prepared for

the National Assessment of Vocational Education. San Marcos, CA: California State
University, San Marcos. Of
eil

National Assessmeut of Vocational Education; Final Rep ort to Congress



Volume V

Regardless of the type of coordination activity, JTPA and Adult Basic Education
are consistently the programs with which vocational education agencies corsult
most frequently. On the other hand, one-fifth or more of state secondary
directors report no interaction with the following: JOBS, Vocational
Rehabilitation, the State Employment Service, the National Occupational
Information Coordinating Committee, and the state economic development
agency.

Coordination tends to involve planning activities rather than financial
commitments. The Omnibus Survey asked state directors whether they
participated in specific coordination activities(see Appendix Table A-3.7). The
four planning activities — regular meetings, joint membership on planning
committees, the sharing of state plans, and joint planning — are the most
common forms of coordination; the least frequent type of coordination is joint
funding of programs.

But state-level coordination activities are not limited to these five types of
arrangements. The majority of state directors reported that their agency does
have formal or informal mechanisms for coordination other than those indicated
above. About half reported that they utilize other planning activities, targeting of
funds, decisions about what services to provide, and decisions about priorities
among target groups to coordinate the operations of different education and
training programs (see Appendix Table A-3.8.). In addition, most secondary state
agencies encourage flexible programs, and half of them fund coordinated
assessment, remediation, and/or counseling centers.

State-Level Coordination in Postsecondary Education

Most postsecondary state agencies do have some coordination with other

agencies, but some states still do not coordinate with all possible agencies (see
Appendix Table A-3.7):

. The highest level of state-level cooperation exists between
postsecondary agencies and Economic Development ( only 6'%
reported no interaction),

. Interaction with JTPA’s State Job Training Coordinating Councils
also is relatively high (9% reported no interaction).

. Coordination with JOBS was the least common — one-fourth of the
postsecondary state agencies reported no interaction with JOBS —
perhaps because many adults on public assistance are not prepared
to enroll in postsecondary programs.

As at the secondary level, most coordination at the postsecondary level is in the
form of information sharing and joint planning (see Appendix Table A-3.7):

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Progrants

88



Volume V

Allocations to Districts and Consortia

Other trends in allocation identified in the Interim Report were sustained into
FY93. The Interim Report indicated that between the final year of the 1984
legislation and the first year of the 1990 Act (1991-92), the total number of Title
II-C awards to eligible recipients decreased and the average dollar amount of
local awards increased substantially at both secondary and postsecondary levels.
At the secondary level, the number of awards dropped from 7,625 to 3,958, a
relative decline of 48 percent. The typical award more than doubled, moving
from $44,516 in FY91 to $99,616 in FY92.8

The decline in number of awards was accompanied by the creation of consortia
of districts. Altogether, 8,170 of the nation’s 11,300 school districts with
secondary schools (72%) were in consortia in FY92, while 2,825 districts (25'%)
received individual Title II-C grants. Thus, almost all school districts participated
in the Perkins Act, either directly or indirectly. In 16 of the 43 states fur which
complete data were available, almost all districts were in consortia.

Not all districts in a consortium actually received support, but data from the 1993
Followup Survey indicate that 84 percent of school districts with secondary
schools received and used basic grant funds. This is a substantial increase from
the last year of the 1984 Act, when about 67 percent of districts were funded.
Through the consortium mechanism, basic grant funds are being distributed to
more districts than before.

While consortia are widespread and include many school districts, they received
only 35 percent of the II-C funds allocated to the secondary level in FY92.
Consortium grants were larger than grants to individual districts ($115,342 in
contrast to $89,609 in FY92), but the average consortium included about seven
school districts.

Spot checks for FY93 show almost no change in the number of secondary awards
or the mix of individual and consortium grantees. Information from the
Followup Survey of school districts shows a considerable regional difference in
use of consortia, with school districts in the Central region of the country much
more likely to participate in consortia (Table 1.2). These data also show that
districts participating in consortia tend to be small; only 23 percent of the high
schools in multiple-school districts were in consortia in FY93.9

Allocations to Postsecondary Institutions

At the postsecondary level, the introduction of the within-state formula and
minimum grant requirements had important, if less dramatic, effects. Overall,
there was a 20 percent decline in the number of local grantees. At the same time,
the average award increased 26.4 percent, from $177,116 in FY91 to $223,922 in
FY92.10 Additional information from the Followup Survey shows that, despite

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Finids 5

16


Kulik, J.A. (1994). High School Vocational Education and Curricular Tracking. Draft report prepared
for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan.

Kusserow, R. (1991). Services Lutegration: A Twenty-Year Retrospective. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General.

Lah, D., Wolf, W., Christian, J. & Good, J., (1983). Longer-Teri Impacts of Pre-Employient Services
on the Employment and Earnings of Disadvantaged Youth: A Project of the Private Sector
Initiatives Demonstration of Public/Private Ventures. Philadelphia: Public/Private
Ventures. (ED 245 007).

Larson, M. (1977). The Rise of Professionalisin: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of
Califernia Press.

Lerman, R.1. (1994). Reinventing education. Vocational Education Journal, 69(3), 20-21.

Lewis, D., Hearn, J., & Zilbert, E. (1993). Efficiency and equity effects of vocationally focused
postsecondary education. Sociology of Education, 66 (July), 188-205.

Lillis, J. (1994, March). Prison education programs reduced, Corrections Compendium, 19(3), 1-6.

Little, A.R. (1990). Model offices in model communities. Perspective: Essays aud Revivws of Issues
in Employment Security and Employueut and Training Programs, 6, 107-113.

Lundine, S. (1992). Job Training 2000: A step in the right direction. In Making Sense of Federal Job
Training Policy: 24 Expert Recouunendations to Create a Comprehensive and Unified Federal Job
Training Systent (pp. 42-43). Washington, DC: National Youth Employment Coalition
and William T. Grant Foundation Commission on Youth and America’s Future.

Lyke, R., Gabe, T., & Aleman, $.R. (1991). Early Labor Market Experiences of Proprietary School
Students. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Lynch, L. (1993). The economies of youth training in the United States. Economic Journal, 103,
1292-1302.

Lynch, R.L. (1993). Vocational Teacher Education in U.S. Colleges and Universities and Its
Responsiveness to the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990.
Draft report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Athens, GA:
University of Georgia, School of Leadership and Lifelong Learning.

Lynch, RL. (1994). Occupational Experiences as the Basis for Alternative Teacher Certification in
Vocational Education. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, School of Leadership and
Lifetime Learning,

Lynn, 1, & Wills, J. (1994). School-to-Work Transition Lessons on Recruiting and Sustaining Employer
Involveneut, Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Maguire, K., Pastore, A.L., & Flanagan, T.}. (Eds.) (1993). Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics,
1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

R12 National Assessment of Vocational Lducelion: Tinal Report to Congress

wi?



Volume V

types of state assistance between 1990 and 1993. Consistent with Perkins Act
emphases, the development of performance standards and measures, and the
coordination of vocational education with other programs showed especially
large increases. States with 50 percent or greater declines in secondary-level staff
showed relatively small increases in most activities, however. There is also
evidence that state activities related to implementation of some Perkins
initiatives, especially those without specific federal deadlines, may have started
somewhat late.

Part of the lag in implementation activities may have been due to delays at-the
federal level. In particular, development of federal regulations for the 1990 Act -
and review /approval of state plans took longer than expected. Delays in issuing
regulations occurred primarily for bureaucratic reasons, while the delay in
approval of state plans was largely due to difficulties in carrying out the
legislative requirement to review plans for their quality. The federal officials
interviewed urge reconsideration of the negotiated rulemaking process,
incentives for speedy regulations development, and a formal set of quality
indicators for state plans.

We recommend that the federal government consider ways to speed up the
regulations review process and that the U.S. Department of Education develop
and disseminate criteria for the evaluation of the quality of state plans.

Finally, secondary-level district administrators are relatively positive about the
state role in Perkins implementation. They noted that state support for initiatives
included in the 1990 Amendments increased considerably between 1990 and
1993. They also indicated that the increase in state support has accelerated
recently, reinforcing the finding that levels of state activity are picking up as
design activities end and implementation gains momentum. Administrators in
districts with federal funding are considerably more positive about state
leadership than are those in districts without federal funds. With respect to one
specific service that states are likely to help provide, far more district
administrators indicated that in-service training was’ available in their districts
for Perkins-related topics in 1993 than was the case in 1992.

The State Administration of the Perkins Act

8 47

ot


Table T.12
Final Survey Sample for Vocational Student Organization Survey

No. of No. of Percent of
Chapters | Students in No. of VSO
in Sample | Final Sample | Chapters | Chapters
Vocational Student Organization Frame* Frame inSample | Studied
Secondary
Business Professionals of America} 2,360 N/Ae 221 9
(BPA)
Distributive Education Clubs of 3,789 122,160 245 6
America (DECA)
Future Business Leaders of 5,379 213,773 273 5
America (FBLA) -
National FFA Organization (FFA) 7,118 418,879 303 4
Future Homemakers of America/ 8,693 228,933 329 4
Home Economics Related
Occupations (FHA/HERO)
Health Occupations Students of 1,101 35,211 201 18
America (HOSA)
Technology Student Association 639 N/A 191 30
(TSA)
Vocational Industrial Clubs of 3,297 207,666 237 7
America (VICA)
Total 32,376 2,000 6
Postsecondary
Business Professionals of America 105 2,054 105 100
(BPA)
Distributive Education Clubs of 183 4,561 183 100
America (DECA)
Future Business Leaders of 365 N/Ab 250 68
America-Phi Beta Lambda
(FBLA-PBL)
Health Occupations Students of 200 5,876 200 100
America (HOSA)
National Postsecondary 44 1,011 44 100
Agricultural Student
Organization (PAS)
National Young Farmer 740 N/AP 250, 34
Education Association (NYFEA)
Vocational Industrial Clubs of 310 54,601 250 81
America (VICA)
Total 1,947 1,282 66

Includes all chapters listed by VSO National Offices minus “ineligible” chapters such as
olementary and intermediate schools and universities that were deleted prior to sampling.

© Not available either from VSO chapter rosters or survey data.

Source: Adapted from Tao & Richard (1993), p. 15

Technical Appendix

183

T-29


Volume V

The most common service provided to both JTPA and JOBS clients (see
Appendix Table A-3.15) at two-year public postsecondary institutions is
classroom instruction:

° Eighty-six percent of institutions with JTPA services provide
classroom instruction under contract with JTPA.

. Seventy-one percent of institutions with JOBS students provide
classroom instruction to the JOBS clients.

Most of this classroom instruction for JTPA and JOBS clients is provided in
regular classrooms, but over half of the JTPA and JOBS clients receive at least
some of their classroom instruction in special classes.

Postsecondary institutions under contract to JTPA also commonly provide other
ancillary services. Most of these institutions reported that they provide
counseling and assessment to over half of the JTPA and JOBS students (between
61 and 64 percent). Job placement and job clubs or job search assistance were also
fairly common, while on-the-job training contracts were relatively rare.

One benefit of coordination between postsecondary institutions and federal job-
training programs is the opportunity for clients to enroll in longer and more
intensive vocational education programs than are the norm in JTPA and JOBS.
About one-half of postsecondary institutions enroll JTPA students in associate
degree programs and nearly two-thirds enroll them in certificate programs. The
corresponding figures for JOBS students are 47 percent and 43 percent,
respectively (see Appendix Table A-3.16).

Bailis and Grubb caution against regarding these results as overly positive. They
assert that “without longitudinal information about whether these individuals
actually complete credentials, it is hard to know how important it is simply to be
enrolled in programs that could lead to associate degrees or certificates, since the
rate of completion in community colleges and technical institutes is so low.“58

Customized Training. Customized training programs, designed to meet the
needs of individual firms, are widespread, with 81 percent of two-year public
postsecondary institutions providing them (see Appendix Table A-3.17).
Although it has been argued that “customized training does not in general
expand the options for individuals in these federal programs,”*? 23 percent of the
postsecondary institutions with customized programs reported that they
normally include JTPA or JOBS clients in the training.

Funding. Funding patterns also suggest the effectiveness of coordination

between postsecondary vocational educational institutions and job-training
programs. For postsecondary institutions receiving JTPA funds, the average

{00

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs 89



Sampling began by rank ordering respondents to the Omnibus regular school
district questionnaires by the size of their Perkins funds gain or loss. Districts
with gains or losses of less than $100,000 were excluded from consideration. The
following steps were then taken to select the final sample:

¢ Toensure that the sample would reflect variation in district size and
locale (urban, suburban, rural), districts were classified by the size of
their gains or losses into the following categories:

Gain Categories: More than $1 million; $500,000 to
$1 million; $250,000 to $499,999; $100,000 to $249,999.

Loss Categories: More than $1 million; $200,000 to
$1 million; $100,000 to $199,999.

The loss categories were broader than the gain categories because there
was less variability in the size of Perkins funding losses than gains. For
example, only 21 Omnibus sample districts experienced losses greater
than $100,000 and only three had losses greater than $500,000.

¢ Inaddition to absolute dollar shifts in funding, the relative impact of
fiscal changes is an important factor. For example, a loss of $200,000 is
likely to have a greater impact on a district's vocational programs
when that sum represents £0 percent funding cut than when it
represents a 10 percent cut. Thus, within each gain and loss category,
districts were selected in which the dollar change in funding also
represented a relatively large percentage change in Perkins funds.

« From these districts, sites were selected to represent a variety of
different funding change patterns. Funding patterns selected for
inclusion were: a district that received Perkins funding in 1991-92 but
not in 1990-91; a district that had an increase in Perkins funding while
the total educational budget declined; a district with a decrease in
Perkins funding when the total educational budget remained stable;
and a district with decreases in both Perkins funding and total
educational funding.

¢ Finally, main and back-up sites were selected to ensure adequate
geographic diversity across the country, and to avoid overlap with the
Community Case Study sites.

The final sites selected for case studies, while not statistically representative of
the nation, reflect a range of school districts. Four of the eight sites were large
cities: one in the northeast, one in the south, one in the midwest, and one in the
west. Two other sites were suburban county school districts, one served the

Technical Appendix 1 9 ” T-43



exception was the NYFEA. Chapters located in Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands and those with Army/ Air Force Post Office (APO) addresses were also
excluded; these chapters seem to have organizational structures quite different
from other chapters in the same VSOs.

Examination of chapter data provided by VSO national offices revealed great
variations across VSOs in the number of chapters, number of members in typical
chapters, and the total membership nationwide. Such extreme diversity required
careful attention to two conflicting needs: (a) to include a certain minimum
number of chapters from even the smallest VSOs to ensure having sufficient data
to describe them accurately; and (b) at the same time, to avoid under-
representation of very large VSOs. Funding constraints also limited the
secondary sample to 2,000 VSO chapters, and the postsecondary sample to less
than 2,000 chapters.

To balance these needs, key features of the final sample design were as follows:

¢ Sample chapters at the secondary level were allocated by assigning a
minimum of 180 chapters to each of eight VSOs with secondary
chapters (total of 180 x 8 = 1,440), and proportionately distributing the

remaining 560 chapters according to the number of chapters in each
vso.

* Among seven VSOs that have postsecondary or adult chapters, four
VSOs have fewer chapters than the 250 minimum sample size chosen
for this level. For these VSOs, all chapters were included in the study
(i.e., resulting in a census survey design). Finally, a systematic sample
of 250 chapters was selected from each of three VSOs with more than
250 postsecondary chapters. The total postsecondary sample (including
250 NYFEA adult education chapters) was 1,282.

Table T.12 presents the survey population, stratified by VSOs and educational
level, with numbers of chapters that were selected according to the rules stated
above. The table also shows the percentages of chapters in each stratum
represented by the sampled chapters.

Mail Survey

Two versions of the VSO Survey were used, one for VICA chapters and the other
for all other chapters. For all non-VICA VSOs, survey respondents were the
faculty advisors of the sampled chapters. Since VICA chapters may include many
subsections with different advisors representing different occupational areas
(e.g., health, cosmetology, trade occupations), VICA surveys were mailed to the
principals of sampled schools with a request that each principal assign one VICA
advisor to respond for all VICA sections in that school. The survey instrument
for VICA was modified to reflect this difference in chapter structures.

7-28 Technical Appendix



Volume V

SDA revenues, though they are also used to funnel resources to school districts
and community colleges.” 25

Although the average state allocates almost half of its set-aside funds to LEAs, a
relatively small proportic 1 of school districts are receiving those funds. As

shown in Table 3.4:

. Less than one in ten (approximately 735) regular districts reported

receiving set-aside funds in 1991-92, with an average funding level
of about $66,500.

Vocational districts are more likely to receive set-aside funds, but
receive a smaller average amount (even though a larger percentage
of vocational districts receive such funds, the actual number of
vocational districts is smaller than the number of regular districts).

Postsecondary institutions report that they are more likely to receive 8 percent
set-aside funds than LEAs are:

. About one in three of the two-year postsecondary institutions
(more than 300 institutions) reported that they received set-aside
funds in 1991-92.

. The average amount of funds received by those institutions was
$77,608.
Table 3.4
Allocation of JTPA Eight Percent Set-Aside Funds
Regular Secondary | Vocational | Postsecondary
Districts Districts Institutions

Percent that received 7 22 32

8 percent funds during

1991-92
Mean amount of 8 percent $66,538 $52,762 $77,608

funds?
Mean percent of 0.6 15 1.3

revenues*

Calculations include only those districts that reported receiving some 8% funds during 1991-92.

Sources: Omnibus Surveys of Secondary School Districts (Version A and Vocational)

68

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Progranis

79


SCANS Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills
SCOVE State Council of Vocational Education
SDA Service Delivery Area
SES Socioeconomic Status
SHRIC State Human Resource Investment Council
SIPP Survey of Income and Program Participation
SREB Southern Regional Education Board
T&I Trade and Industry
TIE Training, Industries, and Education
TSA Technology Student Association
VICA Vocational Industrial Clubs of America
vsO Vocational Student Organization
AC4 National Assessment of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress

230



Volume V

CHAPTER 2
THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PERKINS ACT

This chapter examines the role of states in administering the 1990 Perkins Act. It
presents data on the size of state staffs administering secondary and
postsecondary vocational education, drawn from the 1992 and 1993 Omnibus
surveys of state directors of secondary and postsecondary vocational education.
It then takes a more specific look at the relationship between state staff, federal
resources, and state responsibilities, focusing on the secondary level. That
discussion makes use of data from both sets of state surveys as well as state
finance data on awards of Perkins funds to local recipients. The chapter explores
the role of the federal government in providing states with guidance to
administer federal vocational legislation; it is based upon state survey responses
and a series of interviews conducted with federal officials. The discussion
concludes with a presentation of school district views of state administrative
performance. The data for the district perspective are drawn from the 1992 and
1993 Omnibus surveys of districts. (The Omnibus Survey and other data
collections are described in the Technical Appendix.)

CHANGES IN STATE STAFFING AND RESPONSIBILITIES, 1990-1993

The Interim Report presented evidence that the number of state staff available to
administer secondary vocational education declined during the period from 1987
to 1992, and that the remaining staff managed greater resources.! Most of the
decline appeared to have occurred between 1990 and 1992, a period during
which state agencies administering secondary vocational education saw a decline
of at least 28 percent in federal vocational funds. This finding suggested that
changes in the 1990 Perkins Act that shifted more resources to eligible recipients
and away from state agencies probably accounted for the decline in staff.
However, it was impossible to attribute the reduction in state staff to legislative
changes with much confidence because (a) the nonvocational staff in the same
state agencies or divisions also lost staff, and (b) there were no comparable
reductions in vocational staff at state postsecondary agencies.

Information updated to include the results of the 1993 Followup Survey
continues to show a decline in the vocational staff of secondary state agencies
between spring 1990 and spring 1993 (Table 2.1). The average number of state
employees engaged fully or largely in administering secondary vocational
education declined from 28.6 in 1990 to 24.1 in 1993, a relative decrease of 15.7
percent. Declines in staffing of state vocational administration occurred in 28 of
the 42 states for which comparable data exist in both years, meaning that
approximately two-thirds of the states have experienced at least some decline.
For the median state, staff devoted to administering secondary vocational

a
Tne State Administration of the Perkins Act ‘t 0 29


in a south central state, with one comprehensive high school, one distant
area vocational school (not visited), and a postsecondary institution in
transition from a vocational school to a technical college.

¢ Dry Gulch. This is a rural community in a southwestern state. The
majority of the population is first- or second-generation Hispanic. The
secondary district has a single high school and a postsecondary institution
located about 45 miles away. The local area vocational school was not
visited.

* Rolling Woods. This community is located in a rural depressed area of
an eastern state, within an hour’s drive of a major metropolitan area. The
site includes a state-run area vocational school, which serves 14 school
districts in three counties, and a community college, which serves two of
the three counties. The secondary district at this site was not visited.

¢ Garden Park. This site is a one-high-school community in the least
populated section of a rapidly growing eastern population corridor. The
population is over 80 percent white. The site visit included the high
school, one of two area vocational schools (serving five county schools),
and a community college.

* Green Glade. A sparsely populated area in a sparsely populated
northeastern state, this community has a majority white population. The
site visit included the secondary district’s single high school, one of two
area vocational-technical centers, and three community colleges.

*¢ Louisville. This majority-white community is in a depressed area of an
eastern state that was once a prosperous industrial area. The site visit
included the district’s one high school (which the state had designated
economically depressed), the area vocational school, and the community
college, which is located directly across the street from the vocational
school.

* Southern Pines. This community is composed of a small town district
and a surrounding county district ina southern state. The community is
about 70 percent white and 30 percent black. The site visit included the
district’s single high school, as well as the vocational center in the town. A
local community college, serving a seven-county area, was also visited.

¢ Mountain View. This is a rapidly growing suburban area ina
northwestern state. The majority of the population is white and
upper-middle class. The site visit included the only high school in the
district, a consortium -based area vocational school serving students from
this and, primarily, another district, and the local community college.

Technical Appendix T2390

103


Volume V

Figure 2.1

Agreement Rates of State Vocational Education Directors on U.S. Department
of Education Assistance in Implementing the 1990 Perkins Act

In General,
the Department
of Education Has:

Provided Adequate
Opportunity for Input in

Developing Regulations
for the 1990 Perkins Act

85

Been Responsive to
Inquiries About Regulations
for the 1990 Perkins Act

Provided Perkins Act : Y ‘ 50)
Information Necessary for _
Developing Your State Plan 53)

Been Responsive to
Inquiries Related to
Your State Plan

Been Timely in Handling
Your State Plan After
It Was Submitted

Provided Relevant and F
Timely Technical Assistance |:
on Implementing New 27
Initiatives in the Act

0 20 40 60
Percent of State Directors.

80 100

[J Secondary Directors LE] Postsecondary Directors

Source: Omnibus Survey's of Secondary and Postsecondary State Directors

The State Administration of the Perkins Act

41



Volume V

° lowa also is planning an integrated management information system that
“will eventually allow client tracking across all relevant programs,
eliminate duplicative information-gathering from individual clients, and
provide comprehensive information to clients on available services." The
project first will establish “electronic links between existing data systems"
and then will develop “a common client intake procedure [which] will be
supported by a single computerized form and compatible work stations.
Data collected with this system will be stored in a new common database
but will also be accessible by currently used systems . [T]he fully
integrated information system will enable administrators to track clients’
progress among programs, to provide comprehensive case management,
and to assess the performance of participants." Initially, JTPA, JOBS, and
ES will be included in the system.”

. Under New York's GATEWAY (Gaining Access to the Emerging
Workforce for Adults and Youth), state and local government agencies
and service providers integrate their programs to focus on the individual
client.3 This was accomplished by simplifying paperwork, joint
contracting, information sharing, and widespread marketing of programs.
GATEWAY has been credited with making the structure of service
delivery more client-focused and strengthening partnerships among local
programs. In the future, the GATEWAY system will allow New York to
integrate intake, assessment, counseling, training referral, support
services, job placement, and followup services. New York already has
instituted GATEWAY in four counties and has plans to expand into other
locations.

. Jobs New Jersey (JNJ) was instituted in 1989 to fulfill a state mission to
integrate the state's ES and JTPA offices into a system of "seamless
service.” + The New Jersey Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services
was added later the same year. Under the direction of a coordinator who
was familiar with the programs and knew how to publicize them, one

wv

Alt (1994), p, 22.

Lundine, S. (1992), Job Training 2000; a step in the right direction, Making Sense of Federal Job
Training Policy.

+ White, J-R. (1990), Jobs Now Jer
Reviews of Issues in Employment

A model concept in cooperation, in Perspective: Essays and
writyand Emploument and Training Programs, 6, pp. 25-30.

Lei

A-10 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs



Volume V

Table 2.11
Availability of In-Service Training in Regular and Vocational Districts,
1991-92 and 1992-93 (Percent of Districts)

1991-92 1992-93
All Regular | Vocational All Regular | Vocational
In-service Topic Districts Districts Districts Districts Districts Districts
Integration of 49 48 77 83 83 94
vocational and
academic
education
Tech-prep 45 44 72 85 85 95
programs
Student 39 39 48 78 78 85
assessment,
performance
evaluation
Serving vocational 38 38 64 80 80 86
special needs
students
“All aspects of the 18 17 24 58 58 61
industry”
curriculum

Sources: 1992 Omnibus Survey and 1993 Followup Survey of Public School Districts

CONCLUSION

Survey data showed declines in the number of state staff available to administer
secondary vocational education in most states between 1990 and 1993. States
with declines in secondary-level state staffing showed larger amounts of federal
funds per 1993 professional staff member. Those states also showed more awards
to local recipients per staff member, but most states reported relatively low
numbers of awards per staff member. However, a small subset of states showed
high federal dollars and 20 or more local awards per staff member at the
secondary level. Survey data did not show comparable declines in state staffing
at the postsecondary level.

Despite the declines in secondary state staff, states reported increases in staff
time devoted to a wide array of oversight and technical assistance functions at
both secondary and postsecondary levels. Assistance related to the
implementation of Perkins initiatives appears to have increased more than other

46 5 ve The State Administration of the Perkins Act


Jobs for the Future (1991). Essential Elements of Youth Apprenticeship Programs: A Preliminary
Outline, Cambridge, MA: Author.

Johnson, A.W., & Summers, A.A, (1993). What Do We Know About Hor Schools Affect the Labor
Market Performance of Their Students? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, National
Center on the Education Quality of the Workforce.

Johnston, W.B., & Packer, A. (1987). Workforce 2000; Work and Workers for the 21st Century,
Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.

Jovanovic, B., & Moffitt, R. (1996). An estimate of a sectoral model of labor mobility. fournal of
Political Economy, 98(4), 827-852.

Kane, T\J., & Rouse, C.E., (1993). Labor Market Returns to Two-and Four-Year colleges: Is a Credit a
Credit and Do Degrees Matter? (NBER Working Paper 4268). Cambridge, MA: National
Bureau of Economic Research.

Kang, S., & Bishop, J. (1989). Vocational and academic education in high school: Complements.
or substitutes? Economics of Education Review, 8(2), 133-148.

Kantor, H. (1982). Vocationalism in American education: The economic and political context,
1880-1930. In H. Kantor & D. Tyack, Work, Youth, and Schooling: Historical Perspective on
Vocationalism in Auirican Schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Pres

Kantor, H., & Tyack, D. (1982). Work, Youth, and Schooling: Historical Perspectiovs on Vocationalisa:
in American Schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Karweit, N. (1993). Contextual Learning: A Review and Synthesis, Dratt report prepared for the
National Assessment of Vocational Education. Baltimore, MD: Center for Social
Organization of Schools

Kazis, R. (1993). Improving the Transition From School te Work it the United States, Washington, DC:
American Youth Policy Forum, Competitiveness Policy Council, and Jobs for the Future.

Kerka, S. (1989). Cooperative education: Characteristies and effectiveness, ERIC Digest, No. CE-
89-91. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Research.

Kirsch, 1.S., Jungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., & Kolstad, A. (1992). Adult Literacy in America: A First Look
at the Results of the National Adult Literacy Sweey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Kirshstein, RJ., Sherman, D.R., Tikoff, V.K., Masten, C., & Fairweather, J. (1990). The Escalating
Costs of Higher Education, Washington, DC: Pelavin Associates.

Klein,

Hoachlander, E.G., Tebben, C., & Premo, M. (1993). State Allocation of Basic Grant Fun
A Comparison of the Cart D. Perkins Acts uf 1984 and 1990, Report prepared for the National
Assessment of Vocational Education. Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates.

Kogan, D., et al. (1989). luproving the Quality of Training Under JTPA, Berkeley Planning
Associates and SRI International for the U.S. Department of Labor.

Krueger, A.B. "How computers have changed the wage structure: Evidence irom microdata,
1984-1989," The Quarterly journal of Economics. 432: 33-59,

216

ment of Vocational Education: Vinal Report to Congress Rll

National A:



Volume V

Table A-3.13

Two-Year Postsecondary Institutions Reporting Participation
With Planning Entities for Other Employment Preparation Programs

Entity Percent of Institutions
Reporting Participation
None reported 13
The local Private Industry Council (PIC) 68
A planning group for the welfare-to-work 45
(JOBS) program
A local planning council related to adult basic 72
education or remedial education, or a literacy
council
Any other local planning or coordination 63

group involving vocational education, job
training, or other employment-related services

Source: Omnibus Survey of Postsecondary Institutions

143

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs AS


Volume V

Assessment interviewed federal officials involved in, and reviewed documents
pertaining to, rules development and state plan review for the 1990 Perkins Act.

Both rules development and state plan review took far more time than had been
legislatively stipulated. The reasons for delays were quite different for the two
processes, however. With respect to development of regulations, the initial public
input process was conducted in a timely manner, with regional meetings
completed within two months of the Act’s passage. Negotiated rulemaking
required by the legislation was also conducted promptly, but the groups failed to
reach consensus on some of the controversial issues with which they were
presented, so the process proved to be of limited value to those drafting the
regulations. A massive number of comments received in response to the draft
regulations (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) also extended the work of the
drafters.

Issuance of the final regulations was delayed largely for bureaucratic reasons.
The regulations development process entailed repeated reviews by executive
branch offices both inside and outside the Department of Education. There
appear to be few limits on how many times regulations can be reexamined, and
there is little incentive or pressure within the federal bureaucracy to conduct
regulations development in a timely manner. As deadlines are delayed, staffs are
likely to change, and new people must learn the issues, further extending the
time line. The Perkins legislation called for the issuance of final regulations 240
days after passage of the legislation in September 1990, but the regulations were
not issued until August 1992. Delay in the enactment of regulations meant that
definitive federal guidance on implementation of the new initiatives of the 1990
Act was not provided to states and localities for almost two years after the
enactment of the legislation.

The approval process for state plans was also delayed, primarily because the
1990 Amendments introduced a new dimension into plan review, and
Department officials had a difficult time implementing it. Department officials
were asked not only to ensure that states had addressed each element required
by law, but to review the plans for their quality as well. The 1990 Amendments
called for state plans to be approved within 60 days of their submission, but this
timetable assumed that evaluation procedures were in place and that states
submitted high-quaiity plans. Defining the dimensions of quality ina plan
proved to be quite difficult, and no formal criteria or quality indicators were
adopted and provided to states. Instead, the Department carried out a
cumbersome plan review process, with multiple reviews of plans and extended
negotiations with some states. At the end of October 1991, there were still seven
states whose plans had not been approved, although partial funding was
released to those states.

Interviewees note a number of ways in which the federal regulations
development and state plan review processes could be improved. With respect to

a) 53 The State Administration of the Perkins Act



LIST OF ACRONYMS

AACJC American Association of Community and Junior Colleges

ABE Adult Basic Education

ACT American College Testing Program

AFDC Aid for Families With Dependent Children

AVS Area Vocational School

BIA. Bureau of Indian Affairs (U.S. Department of the Interior)

BPA Business Professionals of America

BPS Beginning Postsecondary Study

CAM Certificate of Advanced Mastery

CATI Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview

CBO Community-based organization

ccD Common Core of Data

CIM Certificate of Initial Mastery

CORD Center For Occupational Research and Development

CUR Course Utilization Rate

DECA Distributive Education Clubs of America

DOL (U.S.) Department of Labor

ED (U.S.) Department of Education

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act

ESL English as a Second Language

ETA Employment and Training Administration

FBLA-PBL Future Business Leaders of America - Phi Beta Lambda
National Assessment of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress ACH



Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping Track. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Oakes J., Selvin, M., Karoly, K., & Guiton, G. (1992). Educational Matchmaking: Academic and
Vocational Tracking in Comprehensive High Schools. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND.
Corporation.

Olsen, L. (1993). Creating apprenticeship systems will be tough, advocates admit. Education Week,
March 3, pp. 1, 29.

Osterman, P. (1991). Is There a Problem With the Youth Labor Market and If So How Should We Fix |t?
Paper prepared for Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies project on "Poverty
and Public Policy," funded by the Rockefeller and Russell Sage Foundations.

Osterman, P. (1993). How Connnon fs Workplace Transformation and How Can We Explain Who Adopts
It? Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School.

Osterman, P., & Iannozzi, M. (1993), Youth Apprenticeship and School-to-Work Transition: Current
Knowledge and Legislative Strategy. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania, National
Center on the Educational Quality of the Workforce.

Parnell, D. (1985). The Neglected Majority. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Pauly, E., Kopp, H., & Haimson, J. (1994). Homie-Grown Lessons: Innovative Programs Linking Work
and High School, Executive Sunimary. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation.

Peng, A.A., & Takai, R.T. (1987). High schoo! dropouts: Descriptive information from High School and
Beyond, National Center for Education Statistics Bulletin, Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education (ED 236 366)

Perlmutter, D.E. (1982). Career Training Choice: Project CATCH, A Follow-up Study of Students
Denied Admission to Vocational High Schools. New York City: Board of Education, Office of
Occupational and Career Education (ED 219 563).

Pines, M. (1992). The devil is in the details. In Making Sense of Federal Job Training Policy: 24
Expert Reconunendations to Create a Comprehensive and Unified Federal Job Training System
(pp. 30-31). Washington, DC: National Youth Employment Coalition and William T.
Grant Foundation Commission on Youth and America’s Future.

Pittman, R.B. (1991). Social factors, enrollment in vocational/ technical courses, and high school
dropout rates. Journal of Educational Research, 84(5), 288-295.

Premo, M., & Levesque, K. (1994). State School Reforms for the Non-College Bound. Report prepared
for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates.

Rahn, M.L., Hoachlander, E.G., & Levesque, K. (1992). State Systems for Accountability in
Vocational Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational
Education.

Rasinski, K.A. (1994). The Effect of Hight School Vocational Education on Academic Achievement Gain
and High School Persistence: Evideuce From the NELS 88. Draft report prepared for the
National Assessment of Vocational Education. Chicago: National Opinion Research
Center.

R16 National Assessment of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress

BON



FBP
FFA

FHA/HERO

PLIT
GAO
GED
GPA
HHS

HOSA

IHS
IPEDS

JOBS

JTPA
LEA
LEP
MDRC
NAB
NABE

NAEP

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Future Farmers of America

Future Homemakers of America/Home Economics
Related Occupations

Functional Literacy Project

General Accounting Office

General Education Development

Grade Point Average

(U.S.) Department of Health and Human Services
Health Occupation Students of America

High School and Beyond

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
Individualized Education Plan

Indian Health Service

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

Job Opportunity and Basic Skills (Family Support Act of
1988)

Job Training Partnership Act

Local Education Agency

Limited English Proficient

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation
National Alliance of Business

National Association for Bilingual Education

National Assessment of Educational Progress

AC2

National Assessment of Vocational Edneation: Pinal Report to Congress

£28


Volume V

local governmental bodies, the state legislature, any state or local program that
receives funds from an applicable federal human resource program; and experts
on “special education and career development needs of hard-to-serve
individuals.” 34 :

The SHRICs’ mandatory responsibilities are to:

(1) review methods of coordinating services, funds, and resources
under federal human resource programs and to advise the
governor,

(2) . advise the governor on the adoption of state and local measures
and standards for federal human resource programs as well as to
coordinate these measures and standards across programs; and

(3) carry out the duties and functions of existing councils that oversee
human resource development programs.

SHRICs may also make recommendations for developing and coordinating a
human resource system; and develop, monitor, and evaluate strategic plans.*°

Developmental Aspects. The SHRICs are designed to consolidate advisory
bodies that monitor programs under JTPA, the 1990 Perkins Act, the National
and Community Service Act of 1990, the Adult Education Act, the Wagner-
Peyser Act, JOBS, and the Food Stamp Act’s employment training component. If
the heads of relevant state agencies and oversight councils agree with the state’s
governor that they should be included, the SHRICs bring together their
representatives to work on issues. SHRICs have access to the services, personnel,
facilities, and information of any state or local public agencies, provided these
agencies give their consent. The only programs that may not be included are
those authorized by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The 1993 Followup Survey found that few states have established SHRICs
(Appendix Table A-3.4):

. Eight states, or 16 percent of the states responding, had a SHRIC at
the time of the survey (spring, 1993).

° Six additional states planned tc have one before the end of 1993.

. Only six states reported that they have a SHRIC with Perkins

programs under their jurisdiction.

In some states, State Councils on Vocational Education have resisted the
formation of a SHRIC that would absorb the state council’s responsibilities,
funds, and staff. Some SCOVE staff express fear that, if it were to become part of

Coordinating Vocational Education aud Federal Job-Training Progranis 8 ray 7
fe


Volume V

two-year postsecondary institutions surveyed by the National Assessment
reported that they are the local administrative entity for JTPA. In addition, this
approach is believed to have little impact on the kinds of services provided.*8

Regional decision-making. A recently introduced model of coordination

involves the consolidation of regional decision-making power over multiple
sources of funding. A local entity may receive funds from a variety of federal and
state programs and decide how the money will be distributed. Such entities differ _
from regional coordination boards in that they have the authority to administer
funds and choose service providers, rather than merely serving in an advisory
role. Proponents of this approach assert that it enables local providers to create
programs that meet the special needs of specific populations.

A New-Model: One-Stop Centers

The eighth model identified by Grubb et al. is a relatively new institution
thought to have great promise: the “one-stop” center.

Several federal initiatives, including the Bush Administration’s Training 2000 Act
and the Clinton Administration’s proposed jobs investment strategy in the fiscal
year 1995 budget, contemplate one-stop centers that would provide a single
client point of entry into the employment and training system. Federal seed
money, accompanied by waivers of federal requirements where necessary,
would help states plan and implement programs that streamline access to the full
range of employment and training services.*9

“One-stop” is used to refer to everything from information centers to fully
integrated employment and education delivery systems. “Co-location” is
distinguished from one-stop service. Co-location refers to the location of various
employment-related entities in close proximity, sometimes in the same building.
While co-location can encourage coordination of services, it is not the same as
establishing one-stop centers that provide a client with one intake counselor for
all programs, share common data systems, and maintain a staff that is
knowledgeable about all local job training and employment opportunities.

One-stop centers, which truly integrate assessment, training, and job placement,
result from a concerted effort on the part of service providers to reduce the
fragmentation of programs and facilitate cooperation among employment service
agencies.

One-stop centers generally combi: runding from several sources and help
individuals eligible under different programs to obtain vocational education or
job training. In analyzing the proposed one-stop centers, one commentator
remarked: “These are not multiple sources of vocational education and training,
but multiple sources of funding which can be used in part for those functions.”*"

aus)
Ue
Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs 81


Volume V

Table 2.5
Percent of State Secondary Vocational Directors Reporting Changes in Time
Devoted to Various Activities, 1990-1993

Increased | About the | Decreased
Activity or Responsibility Time | Same Time Time
Development of student performance measures 88 12
Coordination of vocational education with other 78 12 2
education programs
Responsibilities concerning business /labor 59 29 10
partnerships
Responsibilities concerning special populations 57 39 2
Training/ technical assistance to localities 53 29 18
Distribution/monitoring of federal/state funds 51 41 8
(including audits)
Data collection (other than program evaluation) 45 47 6
Professional development 45 43 12
Curriculum development or dissemination 35 37 25
Local program certification /approval 29 53 12
Evaluation of local programs 24 49 27
Responsibilities concerning vocational student 18 65 16
organizations
State rules enforcement 16 59 22
Teacher certification 10 67 8
Textbook review /adoption 6 33 18

NOTE: Percentages do not add to 100 across rows because not all states conduct each of the
activities.

Source: 1993 Followup Survey of Secondary State Directors

indicating more time devoted to this activity. Increased attention to performance
measures has not been accompanied by decreases in actual evaluations of local
programs at the postsecondary level, however.

Like secondary directors, postsecondary directors report ‘ncreases in time
devoted to activities directly related to Perkins initiatives. In contrast to
secondary directors, however, they are more likely to report increases in other
activities as well. The finding about time devoted to performance measures
development is dramatic, but it should be noted that the Perkins Act is only one

36 The State Administration of the Perkins Act

47


Volume V

Table A-3.2
Secondary State Agency Distribution of JTPA 8% Set-Aside Funds

Percent of States
Reporting that Entity
is Eligible to Receive

Mean Percent of
Funds Distributed to
Entity by State in
Which Entity is

Entity 8-Percent Funds Eligible?

Individual local education authorities (LEAs) 77 40
community Colleges or other postsecondary at 6
JTPA service delivery areas (SDAs) 53 46
Consortia of SDAs and educational institutions 37 16
Other 51 34

States reporting that the entity was eligible but that no funds were allocated to the entity in 1991-
92 are included in the calculation of the mean. Percentages total more than 100 because some
funds are passed through one entity to another — e.g., from SDAs to community colleges.

Source: Omnibus Secondary State Survey

33

ro

A-22 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs



CHAPTER 3 APPENDIX

Volume V

Lid

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs


Volume V

Table A-3.1 (continued)
Comparison of Legislative Requirements for
Essential Elements of Employment Training Programs

FEATURE ADULT EDUCATION ACT NATIONAL APPRENTICESHIP ACT
(Continued) (Continued)
Eligibility Undereducated adults age 16 and older Apprenticeship programs are open to

who are not enrolled in secondary school.
Special emphasis is placed on
educationally disadvantaged adults: adults
whose basic skills are at the fifth grade
level or lower.

anyone at least 16 years of age who is

hysically able to do the work of the trade.
Bore trades have additional eligibility
requirements such as entry examinations
or high school diploma.

Primary Service
Providers

Local educational agencies, correctional
education agencies, community-based
organizations, public or private nonprofit
agencies, postsecondary educational
institutions, and other institutions with the
ability to provide literacy services.

Employers, employer associations,
management, labor groups. Classroom
training is provided in the program
sponsor's training facility or a local
technical school or junior college.

Primary Service
Delivery System

State education agencies allocate funds to
eligible entities at the local level.

On-the-job training and classroom
instruction ranging from 2 to 5 years to
prepare the candidate for a trade. The
training results in a certification.
Apprenticeship isa formal program in
which the apprentice and his or her
employer enter into a formal agreement
which specifies the obligations of each
party.

The Federal government does not fund
apprenticeship training. Its role is setting
standards, promoting programs, and
certifying achievement. Apprenticeship
programs are private sector programs,
Costs are shared by parties to the
agreement. The apprentice usually
receives reduce earnings while the
employer bears the training costs.

Primary
Decision-Making
Entity

State education agencies

Private sector employers and trainees

(Continued)

126

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs

A-15



Ree, M.)., Earles, J.A., & Teachout, M.S. (1992). General Cognitive Ability Predicts Job Performance
(AL-TP-1991-0057). Brooks AFB, TX: Human Resources Directorate, Armstrong,
Laboratory.

Ree, MJ., & Earles, J.A. (1994). The ubiquitous pervasiveness of g. In Rumsey, M., Walker, C., &
Harris, J., Personne! Selection and Classification . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Resnick, L.B. (1987). The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out. Educational
Researcher, 16 (9), 13-20.

Rock, D.A., Ekstrom, R.B., Goertz, M.E., & Pollack, J. (1985). School Quality and Student Outcomes.
. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Roditi, H.F. (1991). How Much Does a Youth Apprenticeship Program Cost and Who Will Pay for It?
Lessons From Some Long-Standing School-to-Work Programs and Youth Apprenticeship
Programs Under Development. Cambridge, MA: Jobs for the Future.

Rumberger, R., & Daymont, T. (1984). The economic value of academic and vocational training
acquired in high school. In Borus, M.E. (Ed), Youth and the Labor Market: Analyses of the
NLS. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Russell, H., Cox, S., Williamson, C., Boismier, J., Javits, H., Fairweather, J., & Zimbler, L. (1990).
Faculty in Higher Education Institutions (NCES-90-365). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Sango-Jordan, M. (1989). Economic outcomes. Career Training, 5, 30-35.

Schlossman, S., & Spitlane, J. (1992). Bright Hepes, Din Realities: Vocational Innovation in American
Correctional Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational
Education.

Schwartz, N.K. (1974). Effects of Trade Experience, Teaching Experience, and Professiounl Education on
bom Teaching Performance of Secondary School Vocational lidustrial Education

. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State Univ orsity.

Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1991). What Work Requires of Schools: A
SCANS Report for America 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

Serrill, MS. (1992, Nov. 9), Struggling to Be Themselves, Time, pp. 53-54
Sheets, R.G. (1994), Building a World-Class Front-Line Workforce: The Need for Occipational Skill

Standards in State Workforce Preparation Programs. (Working Paper). National Couneil for
the Educational Quality of the Workforce,

Silvestri, G., & Lukasiewicz, J. (1993). Projections of occupational enyployment, 1988-2000,
Monthly Labor Revive, 42

Skinner, N. (1990). Forming the Future With a Unique Partnership, Based on presentation at Work
Now and in the Future Conference, Portland, OR, November.

National Assessment of Vocational Fdueation: Vinal Report to Congress RAZ
wae



Volume V

Table A-3.1 (continued)
Comparison of Legislative Requirements for
Essential Elements of Employment Training Programs

JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT

Title II-C
FEATURE Youth Training Program
Purpose To improve the long-term employability of

youth; enhance the educational,
occupational and citizenship skills of
youth; encourage school completion or
enrollment in alternative school programs;
increase the employment and earnings of
h; reduce welfare dependency; and
t youth in addressing problems that
impair their ability to make successful
transitions from school to work,
apprenticeships, the military, or
postsecondary education and training.

Administrative | Employment and Training Administration,
Auspices US. Department of Labor

Fiscal Year 10/1 - 9/30
Program Year | 5/1-9/15

Planning Cycle | Each state prepares an annual statement of
goals and objectives for job training and
placement programs. Also, each state
submits a biennial coordination and
special services plan to ETA for approval.
The proposed plans are published for
review not fewer than 120 days prior to
July 1, The state submits a final plan to
DOL. for approval not fewer than 60 day>
before July is .

Reporting Program reports are submitted annually to
Requirements} DOU. Financial reports are submitted
quarterly and annually.

(Continued)

(Continued)

131

A-20 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs


LS
(g6¢1) AaueyD 222105
00 6S 00 99L 00 9S 00 tLe ueqin,
tT LYS 0% Ole Te Z£1¢ te Sst ueqingns
et SPS ol V62 9% Z£LS £1 98 femy
uoneztuegin Jo [aAa7
ee sss 07 66 cad Z0S 07 SZ 76-1661 UT papuny ION
61 9s Zt cob ee 8'ss eL el 76-1661 UT popuny
snqeys Sulpuny suTy13g
ras LYS €t 618 tt ores St 87 aie]
Zt 68S €T ees ve OSS ras SPL wWNIpeyAL
£7 ees ST 0c 9% 8's Zt 16 TRUS,
azis juaw]jorug
st Oss tL “£te x4 EES) TL 61 eIOL
qoua ayeuysy Joule ayes Joa aqeunysy Joa aqeuysy
prepurys prepues prepueys prepueys
srajajduro> spuny supa uoyeonpa [eUOTRO0A

aq 0} payoadxa
are oym sureiZo1d
yeuoyed0A ut payjorua
syuapnys Arepuosas
jo juaoiad ueay,

76-L66L 9A}@001
0} ueyd jeo0] UMO Jay}
paniuiqns yeyy quaciag

Joy 10ddns ayenbape

papraoid 76-1661 WI

yexau8 ut drysrapeay
aye) Buyodas yuaoiag

76-1661 OF L6-066L Wosy
suonetndod yersads
Joy sadTAJas Uy aseaIOUT
a8ze] SunjJodar juacieg

oysayoereyp PUIsIq,

SpIsIG [OoydS Arepuodag Ie[N3ay [Ty Wor eJeq SuUasaidey s1011y prwpuRys pa}22[2S

eL rqe

T9

Technical Appendix



critical items for which this was an issue were those asking about Perkins
funding. These items had a low response rate and, where data were provided,
were often of questionable reliability. We handled this problem in two ways.
First, these data were generally used in a recoded 0-1 format (denoting whether
or not any funding was received) rather than in dollar amounts. This recoded
yes-no variable is more reliable than the specific dollar figures. Alternative
questionnaire items also were used to determine funding status for the recoded
variable, which lowered this variable’s nonresponse rate.

Second, to provide more reliable data on Perkins funding amounts, states’
Perkins finance records were collected (as described below). These records data
were used for most analyses involving dollar amounts (primarily the analyses in
Chapters 1 and 2 of Volume V).

Further information on the methodology for the Omnibus Surveys is provided in
Chaney (1993).

1993 FOLLOWUP SURVEY

We conducted a telephone followup to the Omnibus Survey in the summer of
1993. The Followup Survey collected school year 1992-1993 data, providing
information on state and local efforts during the second year of the
implementation of the 1990 Perkins Act. This survey included a subset of four
Omnibus Survey zespondent groups: state directors of secondary and
postsecondary vocational education agencies, public secondary school districts,

and public two-year postsecondary institutions. (Secondary schools were not
followed up.)

Sample Selection

The two state components of the Followup Survey continued to be censuses, in
which all eligible members of the sampling frame were selected with certainty
(although, unlike the 1992 Omnibus Survey, U.S. territories were not included).

Thus, 51 secondary and 51 postsecondary state directors of vocational education
were surveyed.

Both responding and nonresponding districts and institutions from the Omnibus
Survey were included in the Followup Survey samples; districts and instituticns
that had proven to be ineligible were dropped. The inclusion of nonrespondents
from Omnibus Survey samples helped to reduce nonresponse bias for the
Followup Survey's cross-sectional estimates. A total of 566 regular secondary
districts were sampled from the original Omnibus sample of 1,797 eligible
districts, using probability proportionate to a measure of size (based on the square
root of enrollments in grades 9-12), while also stratifying for level of urbanization,
Census region, and 1991-92 Perkins funding status.? The Followup sample of
vocational districts included all 257 vocational districts that responded

Technical Appendix

164 T-13


For sale by the
‘Superintenstent of Document

ISBN 0-16- ‘045242. 2

¢ Office
DE 20402-9328

ISBN 0-16-045242-2

| T

9°780160"452420'



TECHNICAL APPENDIX

This appendix describes the methodology used for the major data collection
efforts contributing to this Final Report of the National Assessment of Vocational
Education. For each effort, we summarize the issues addressed, sampling, data
collection procedures, and, where appropriate, survey response rates and
statistical reliability. The time period in which all data were collected is also
provided.

We first review survey efforts, beginning with the National Assessment’s
Omnibus Survey and 1993 Followup Survey. Other surveys discussed are the
National Assessment of Vocational Education Teacher Survey and Employer
Survey, the National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity’s State Sex Equity
Administrator Survey, the Correctional Education Survey, and the Survey of
Vocational Student Organizations. We aiso discuss a series of surveys by the
National Center for Education Statistics — the 1982, 1987, 1990, and 1992 student

transcript studies; the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study; and the
Schools and Staffing Survey.

We also review the State Finance Record Collection of Perkins Act funding data
and three case study efforts — the Community Case Studies and the Funding
Case Studies, both based on Omnibus Survey samples, and the Native American
Tribal Case Studies. In addition to these data collection efforts, the Final Report
includes information from commissioned literature reviews and published
research articles. These are cited in the reference list at the end of the report and
are not discussed here.

Many sections of this Technical Appendix were taken verbatim, or almost
verbatim, from the references listed in the section and/or at the end of this
appendix. We gratefully acknowledge the work of those authors.

THE OMNIBUS SURVEY?

The Omnibus Survey was developed by National Assessment staff, with input
from the National Center for Research in Vocational Education, to collect
information on vocational education conditions and the implementation of the
1990 Perkins Act (see Table T.1). The survey consists of seven paper-and-
pencil questionnaires:

¢ Survey of State Directors of Secondary Vocational Education

¢ Survey of State Directors of Postsecondary Occupational/
Technical Education

* Survey of Public Secondary School Districts (Version A)
* Survey of Public Secondary School Districts (Version B)

150

Technical Appendix T-3



Volume V

ENDNOTES

National Youth Employment Coalition (1992), Making Sense of Federal Job Training Policy: 24
Expert Recommendations to Create a Comprehensive and Unified Federal Job Training System, p. 1,
National Youth Employment Coalition and William T. Grant Foundation Commission on
Youth and America’s Future.

2 Bailis, L.N., & Grubb, W.N. (1993), Summing It All Up: Lessons From the Research Literature on
Ways to Promote Coordination Between Vocational Education and Job Training Programs, paper
prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education, National Center for
Research in Vocational Education.

3 Bailis & Grubb (1993).

4 Alt, M. (1994). The Current Status of Supercouncils nnd Their Activities, paper prepared for the
National Assessment of Vocational Education, MPR Associates.

5 Bailis, L.N. (1989), An Assessment of the JTPA Role in State and Local Coordination Activities:
Report on the Literature Review, James Bell Associates, Inc.

6 Included among this group are the National Alliance of Business, the National Governors’
Association, the National Association of State Job Training Coordinating Council Chairs,
the National Association of State JTPA Liaisons, the National Commission for Employment
Policy, the Employers’ National Job Service Council, and the National Association of State
Councils on Vocational Education. All but the last three of these entities supported the
information of State Human Resource Investment Councils (SHRICs) as of 1993.

7 Alt (1994), p.6.

8 Morra, L.G. (1992), communication to the Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman of the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate (GAO/HRD-92-39R),
Genera! Accounting Office (July 24, 1992).

9 McDonnell, L.M., & Zellman, G.L. (1993). Education and Training for Work in the Fifty States:
A Compendium of State Policies, The Rand Corporation.

10 Jennings, E.T. (1993), Patterns and perceptions of employment and training coordination in
the States, in E.T. Jennings & N.S. Zank, Welfare System Reform: Coordinating Federal, State,
and Local Public Assistance Programs, Greenwood Press.

1 McDonnell & Zellman (1993)

12 Section 101 11(A) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

13° AIL (1994), p.9.

14 U.S. General Accounting Office (1993e), Multiple Employment Programs: National Employment
Training Strategy Needed, testimony before the Subcommittee on Education, Labor, and
Health and Human Services, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate.

15 Ihid., p.o. 4

lio
Coordinating Vocational Education aud Federal Job-Training Programs 99



Volume V

Table 3.2
Comparison of Target Groups Identified in Each Program

Target
Population

Program

Perkins

JTPA
ILA

JTPA
IL-B

JTPA
I-C

Apprentice-
ship

Voc.
Rehab.

Wagner

JOBS.

Adult
Ed.

Youth

Children
receiving foster
care

Adults

Adults needing,
retraining

Economically
disadvantaged

Welfare recipients

Handicapped /
persons with
disability

Pregnancy or
parenting /
single parents

Women/
participants in
sex equity

ic skills

~ deficient

School drop-
‘outs/not
enrolled in
secondary
school

Limited-English
proficient

Chapter 1
participants

Eligible for free
meals

Runaways

Homeless.

Offende
inearcerated

Veterans

Older worker

Rural residents

xX
x

xe

“KK MK

x

xm

x

x

*

* Including, postsecondary students.

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs

59


Volume V

that period. In 1993, 74 percent of regular district administrators and 83 percent
of vocational district administrators indicated an increase in state support for
vocational-academic integration over the three-year period (spring 1990 to spring
1993). In the 1993 survey, 79 percent of administrators in regular districts
reported an increase in state support for tech prep between 1990 and 1993,
compared with only 58 percent who had reported an increase in state support for
tech prep between 1990-91 and 1991-92. These findings indicate that states may
have gotten a relatively late start in providing support to localities on issues
related to Perkins implementation, but that state support levels are now
increasing. '3

The local responses give further credence to the notion that state administrators
of secondary vocational education have been most active on Perkins-related
issues. In the 1993 survey, district administrators were more likely to indicate
increases in state support for Perkins-related activities than for “state leadership
in general” since 1990. Further, administrators in districts that did not receive
Perkins support were less likely to indicate increases in state support, not only
for Perkins-related issues, but for “state leadership in general” as well.

District administrators in the Northeast are less likely to report increases in levels
of state support than administrators in other regions of the country (see Table
2.10). For example, only 52 percent of administrators in the Northeast reported
increases in state support for academic-vocational integration, compared to 74
percent of administrators across the country. Since the Northeast contains more
states reporting staff declines of 50 percent or greater than does any other region
(40% of such states are in the Northeast), this finding may provide some evidence
that sharp decreases in state staff affect states’ ability to provide services to
localities. (The regional difference in vocational staff declines also suggests that
regional economics has been a factor in staff declines, as the Northeast has been
hard hit by the recent recession.)

As another indicator of changing state roles, district officials indicated a
substantial increase between 1991-92 and 1992-93 in the range of topics for
which in-service training is available to vocational teachers (Table 2.11). Because
in-service training is likely to be sponsored by states, the findings reinforce the
notion that state activity related to Perkins implementation accelerated in the
second year of implementation. The availability of in-service training on topics
related to implementation practically doubled for regular school districts
between 1991-92 and 1992-93. Slightly more vocational districts continue to have
access to most topics, but the large differences between regular and vocational
districts noted in the [teri Report are now minimal. The dramatic increase in
the availability of Perkins-related in-service training between 1991-92 and 1992-
93 once again suggests that while state implementation of federal policy may
have started slowly, it is now well underway.

The State Administration of the Perkins Act 45,


NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS (NCES) STUDIES

In this section, we provide a brief overview of the NCES transcript and survey
studies used in this report, and of how these data were modified or adapted for
use in the National Assessment. These descriptions are drawn largely from Davis
and Sonnenberg (1993).

High School Transcript Studies

High school transcript studies provide records of students’ coursetaking that can
be used to examine the nature and extent of vocational coursetaking. These
studies also include basic background information on students, which can be
linked to transcript records to examine coursetaking patterns for different types
of students (e.g., males versus females, students with different high school
grades).

Since 1980, the U.S. Department of Education has conducted four high school
transcript studies of public school students. The first was part of the High School
and Beyond (HSB) first followup survey in 1982. About 15,000 transcripts were
collected from school records for HSB sophomore cohort students who were
seniors in 1982. The second transcript study was the 1987 High School Transcript
Study. This study surveyed approximately 34,000 seniors who had participated
(as 11th graders) in the 1986 National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). The 1990 High School Transcript Study is the third transcript study; it
includes 23,000 transcripts for students who participated in the 1990 NAEP as
12th graders. The most recent transcript study comes from the 1992 National
Education Longitudinal Study (NELS), which includes 11,677 transcripts for
12th-grade students from the base-year 1988 NELS 8th grade cohort.

Details on the methodology for each of these transcript studies are provided in
the following reports:

¢  Ingels et al. (1993) for the NELS follow-up study (transcript study
documentation is not yet available).

¢ Legum et al. (1993) and Caldwell et al. (1993) for the 1990 NAEP
transcript study.

¢ Thorne et al. (1989) for the 1987 NAEP transcript study.

¢ Jones et al. (1983) for the 1982 HSB transcript study.
The National Assessment used the 1992 transcript study to examine recent
patterns of participation in vocational education, and compared these with data

from the earlier transcript studies to examine trends in vocational participation.
For these analyses, the samples were restricted to public school students who

Technical Appendix V3



Volume V

For example, the National Commission for Employment Policy concluded after a
two-year study of coordination that the Food Stamp Employment and Training
Program, JTPA, JOBS, and “other relevant job training programs” should be
merged into one agency.® Several researchers, however, have argued against
such large-scale restructuring based on the amount of time, energy, and political
capital that it would take to pass legislation, and the possibility that massive
reorganization designed to increase some linkages might actually weaken ties
with other programs. For example, the National Commission’s proposal might
improve coordination among the programs cited, but it might do so at the cost of
less coordination with the AFDC and Food Stamp programs. Bailis and Grubb
also worry about the large amounts of political capital that must be spent to
achieve large-scale changes from the status quo, and point to an additional
consideration: “It is far from certain that radical changes in structures will lead to
the attainment of desired ends."

Essential First Steps

There is widespread agreement that leadership from federal and state officials is
essential to improved coordination.

Federal mandates and incentives. The literature review conducted for the
National Assessment notes that, “[T]he existing mandates in vocational
education and job training legislation have had measurable — if not dramatic —
impact in terms of getting people together and hence laying the groundwork for
future efforts to coordinate in more systematic fashions.”®° Bailis and Grubb also
found a growing consensus that incentives such as the JTPA 8 percent set-aside
funds are the most effective. In short, both mandates and incentives can be
helpful.

Moreover, coordination appears to have been most successful when encouraged
by rewards, instead of coerced by penalties. For example, in states that grant
community colleges additional revenue based on enrollment, each JTPA student
an institution enrolls provides a fiscal incentive to cooperate with JTPA.

State policy and leadership. State policy and leadership are critical. Jennings®
and Alt*? recently noted that leadership from the governor and legislature are
needed to make major system changes such as the creation of supercouncils or
other efforts to improve coordination. According to Alt:

The governor has viewed better workforce preparation as a top priority,
appointing members, pushing for legislation and funding, and overseeing
progress. When cabinet-level officials are required to represent their
departments on a council, especially when that council reports to the
governor or lieutenant governor, others working on the projects are likely
to take the tasks more seriously.

105

94 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs



Volume V

well. Such uses are essentially one-time expenditures, which means that they do
not lock districts into the kinds of multiyear commitments necessitated by
spending resources to hire staff or to introduce new programs with extensive
development periods. Possible expenditures of these latter types — such as
hiring special populations coordinators, hiring other vocational staff,
apprenticeship programs — were included in the list of possible fund uses and
did not rank among the top ten district expenditure choices. It is important to
remember, however, that the fact that many districts indicate they use funds for a
purpose does not mean the use commands the greatest share of their basic grant
resources.

Directly funded districts with concentrations of special population students
spend funds differently than directly funded districts as a whole. As Table 1.7
shows, the quartile of individually funded districts with the largest concentration
of special population students spent resources on a wider range of activities than
did other individually-funded districts. In particular, they were considerably
more likely to spend resources for vocational-academic integration, learning labs,
curriculum development/ modification, development of new courses, support
services for special populations, and tech prep. Spending in more categories does
not necessarily mean that these districts spread resources more thinly, however,
as this quartile includes many of the largest school districts in the country.

Expenditure priorities reported by urban districts also look different than those
reported by all districts with individual grants (Table 1.6). (Seventy-six percent of
urban districts with Perkins funding received individual grants.) Urban districts
are more likely than others to report that they use federal funds for each of the
top ten uses cited above. They are particularly more likely to use federal funds
for supplemental services and for various forms of staff development. For urban
districts, the use of funds for supplemental services ranks fifth rather than ninth
(its rank for districts as a whole).

School districts in consortia were also asked about expenditures, and their
responses show some differences from those of districts with individual grants.
Districts belonging to consortia were more likely to report using basic grant
funds for staff development, particularly that focused on academic-vocational
integration (Table 1.6). They were less likely to report using funds to purchase
equipment and materials. Consortium members were slightly less likely than
individual districts to report using federal funds for support services for special
populations, ranking this use 10th. These findings support the notion that
consortia tend to offer, or make available, widely applicable services to their
participating districts — staff development is probably the best example of that
type of service.

Regardless of spending pattern, few school districts consider Perkins Act or other
federal funds adequate to cover the costs of services for special populations. Only
13 percent of individually funded districts and 18 percent of districts in consortia

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds 19

30


Volume V

total numbers of special population characteristics (ie., number of economically
disadvantaged students plus number of students with IEPs plus number of LEP
students, etc.) with each characteristic counting equally. Schools with the highest
total number of characteristics receive the funds. This means that all special
population characteristics count equally and that large schools are more likely
than small schools to receive funds. One reason this method is used may be that
districts do not have individual-level student data available that would allow
them to determine the (undupiicated) number of special population students in
each school. Only one of the districts in the case studies considers the proportion
of special populations to a school’s total enrollment in allocations to schools.

At the time the case studies were conducted (FY93), some of the districts were
still implementing a system for carrying out suballocations, while others were
examining the effects of previous suballocations and making changes. The most
common change appeared to be expanding the number of schools receiving
funding. The expansion seems to have been motivated by political pressures and
a strong sense among administrators about “fairness” to all schools (especially
those schools that had built up substantial vocational offerings over the years but
did not have high concentrations of special populations). Districts that received
substantial increases in basic grant funds under the 1990 Act apparently faced
acute pressures to spread these new funds across many schools.

From both the survey and the case study data, it appears that the within-district
allocation of basic grant funding needs to be more fully specified. There are
several questions: (a) Do the within-district allocation requirements extend to all
basic grant funds, including (for example) personnel slots as well as funds for
purchases? If so, what procedures should districts use to allocate slots? (b)
Should there be rules for the extent of funds concentration — that is, how should
districts decide when funds are sufficiently concentrated? (c) How should special
populations be taken into account in suballocations — for example, should ali
characteristics count equally? Should allocations be based on absolute numbers
of students or on proportions? (d) Should there be opportunities, over time, to
shift some funds among schools independent of their concentrations of special
populations, or to favor different special populations (special education students
one year, LEP students the next)? Clearly, districts are currently making quite
different ad hoc decisions on these matters.

Suballocations for Districts in Consortia

Although most districts in consortia report that services are offered consortium
wide (85%), 67 percent report targeting Title II-C funds to specific programs
within their districts (Table 1.4).!7 Further, almost half the consortium districts
with more than one school (47%) also report within-district funds allocation to
specific schools. Both of these targeting rates are lower than the within-district
targeting rates for districts with individual grants, but they clearly suggest that
consortia are suballocating as well as operating the joint programs envisioned in

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds 15



Volume V

are likely, at least informally, to try to do as much as possible for as many clients
as they can.

Recommendations

The evidence suggests that coordination between vocational education and job
training programs is worthwhile and emphasis on improved collaboration
should be continued.

Since there are limits to what the federal government can accomplish, federal
policymakers might best enhance coordination if they improved coordination
among federal programs; simplified client eligibility, accounting, planning,
reporting, and other regulations; and provided greater flexibility to state and
local entities.

States should be encouraged to use funding policy as an incentive for local
institutions to coordinate programs. The increase in state supercouncils, one-
stop centers, and co-location appears to be a positive trend. A focus on the
potential benefits of coordination, rather than on eliminating perceived
barriers, might better persuade institutions to coordinate with job training
programs.

Although lack of resources is considered by most institutions to be the largest
barrier to local coordination, policymakers should carefully consider the most
cost-effective ways of improving coordination. Coordination set-asides for
special initiatives such as one-stop centers might be an effective way to
previde resources, but controls are needed to assure that set-aside funds are
spent according to Congressional intent.

log

98 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs



Data Collection

The Teacher Survey was administered from October 1992 to January 1993. The
survey administration consisted of one mail-out and telephone followups.

During data collection, 305 teachers were found to be ineligible (no longer at the
school or otherwise not eligible), leaving 2,071 eligible teachers in the sample.
Responses were obtained from 1,924 of these teachers. The final response rate
was 91 percent (98% for schools multiplied by 93% for teachers). Item
nonresponse was less than 2 percent on every item.

Weighting and Reliability of Estimates

The data were weighted to adjust for the variable probabilities of selection and
for differential nonresponse. A final poststratification adjustment was made so
that the weighted teacher counts equaled the corresponding Common Core of
Data (CCD) frame counts within cells defined by school size, urbanization status,
and region.

Estimates of standard errors were computed using jackknife replication. To
construct the replicates, 30 stratified subsamples of the full sample were created
and then dropped one at a time to define 30 jackknife replicates. The standard
error of these replicates provides the jackknife standard error estimate.

As was done for the Omnibus Survey, selected jackknife standard errors were
computed, and used to establish confidence intervals for general analysis
purposes. Based on this procedure, the confidence interval for these data was set
at +5 percent.

EMPLOYER SURVEY

The Employer Survey was a national-level telephone survey conducted from the
spring through summer, 1993, to obtain measures of the evtent of employer
involvement in and satisfaction with vocational education programs. Information
for this section is from the methodology report by Martindale et al.(1994).

Sample Selection

The sampling frame for the Employer Survey was constructed from the 1992 Dun
& Bradstreet DUNS Market Identifiers (DMI) file. The DMI file contains over 8
million business establishments of all types. It is the only widely accessible list of
establishments that includes a measure of size (number of employees) and
industrial classification (by four-digit SIC codes). Use of the DMI file provided a
cost-effective way of identifying and sampling a diverse cross-section of
employers.

T-20 Technical Appendix


Data Collection

Original survey materials were mailed beginning on April 13, 1993. These
materials included the questionnaire, a cover letter signed by the Department of
Education Project Officer, a card with definitions of terms used in the
questionnaire, and a postage-paid business reply card on which the respondent
was to indicate whom to contact to complete the telephone survey and a
convenient time for survey completion. It was intended that all responses be
completed by telephone interview, so no return envelope was included.

Telephone interviews started in May, 1993. Some establishments never received
or had misplaced their questionnaires and required more than one remail, each
requiring a new round of followup calls. Of the 5,479 cases mailed, 3,846
requested a first remail. Of those, 1,067 requested a second, third, or more
remails; 70 “special cases,” such as mailing to headquarters or mailing for

multiple sampled locations to one address, were remailed. Conservatively, 4,983
remails were done.

Because of the iarge sample size, a relatively high refusal rate (25%), and the
unusual number of remails, an extraordinary number of telephone calls was
required. Interviewers often had to reschedule appointments several times to
complete the survey by telephone. Because of the complexity of the
questionnaire, completion of the telephone interview often required more than
one session. The data collection period was extended several times in an attempt

to achieve an acceptable response rate. Data collection was suspended August 31,
1993.

After completed questionnaires were edited, additional followup was conducted
to resolve questions or problems with the survey responses. Approximately 76
percent (2,122) of the completed questionnaires required some form of data
retrieval. The inherent difficulty of the questionnaire led to both respondent and
interviewer error. Because of the large volume of data retrieval cases, not all data
retrieval problems were resolved.

Final Response Rates

The survey resulted in 2,795 completed interviews. After the exclusion of
ineligible cases, the final response rate was 54.8 percent. This unusually low
response rate was the result of many of the factors discussed above.

Weighting and Estimation

In order to reflect population levels, sample weights based on the overall
selection probabilities were calculated for each responding establishment in the
sample. The selection probabilities varied widely by size, class, and
establishment SIC. The reciprocals of the selection probabilities are referred to as

Technical Appendix T-23



VOCATIONAL STUDENT ORGANIZATION SURVEY

The Vocational Student Organization (VSO) Survey obtained information about
VSO structure, membership, activities, funding, and factors that motivate or
inhibit minority participation. It surveyed approximately 2,000 secondary and
postsecondary chapter advisors from the ten existing VSOs:

° Business Professionals of America (BPA)

. Distributive Education Clubs of America (DECA)

. Future Business Leaders of America — Phi Beta Lambda
(FBLA-PBL)

. Future Business Leaders of America (FBLA)

° National Young Farmer Education Association (NYFEA)

Future Homemakers of America/ Home Economics Related
Occupations (FHA/HERO)

Health Occupations Students of America (HOSA)

Technology Student Association (TSA)

Vocational Industrial Clubs of America (VICA)

National Postsecondary Agricultural Student Organization (PAS)

Respondents for the VSO Survey were the faculty advisors of local VSO chapters.
For chapters having more than one advisor, the survey instructions specified that
one advisor respond for the entire chapter. The VSO survey is described in
further detail in Tao and Richard (1993).

Sample Selection

Chapter lists from the VSO national offices provided the information needed for
sampling and mailing the surveys. The VSO sample was selected from all
secondary and postsecondary chapters of the ten national VSOs that were located
in the 50 states and the District of Columbia in the 1991-92 school year. The total
population was approximately 31,100 chapters. The data files did not distinguish
public from non-public schools; therefore, both are in the sample.

The sampling design stratified the entire population of VSO chapters by two
factors: ten VSOs and three educational levels (secondary, postsecondary, and
adult). However, only the National Young Farmers Education Association
(NYFEA) has adult/continuing education chapters, and some VSOs have
chapters only at the secondary or postsecondary level. Therefore, the final
sampling frame included eight types of VSO chapters at the secondary level, six
at the postsecondary level, and NYFEA chapters at the adult/continuing
education level.

The sample design also excluded chapters that only serve students below the
11th grade, and chapters that are only for members no longer enrolled in a
secondary or postsecondary school (e.g., alumni and associate chapters); the one

Technical Appendix 181 27



Volume V

OTES

1 U.S. Department of Education (1994), National Assessmeut of Vocational Education: Interim
Report to Congress.

2 These funds are distributed under Title II-C, and are called the “basic program” in the
legislation. The formulas for distribution of these funds to eligible recipients are
described in detail in Chapter 2 of the Interim Report.

3 The postsecondary formula is still subject to some differences in interpretation because it
is based on the number of Pell Grant recipients enrolled in vocational programs, leaving
it to states or individual institutions te further define vocational enrollments.

4 Interim Report, Chapter 2, Table 2.2. These findings draw heavily on information from
Klein, S., et al. (1994), State Allocation of Basic Grant Funds: A Comparison of the Carl D.
Perkins Acts of 1984 and 1990, MPR Associates.

5 To maintain comparability, Title II-C funding is compared with funding under the
handicapped, disadvantaged, and adult set-asides and program improvement funds
under the 1984 Act.

6 See Interim Report, Chapter 2, Table 2.3.

7 Interim Report, Chapter 2, Table 2.2; National Center for Education Statistics (1988), State
Policies Concerning Vocational Education, Survey Report (NCES 89-420), Table B-i, U.S.
Department of Education.

8 These figures have not been adjusted for inflation.

9 This and other information from the Followup Survey are drawn from tables included in
Chaney, B. (1994), 7993 Follownp Surveys, National As: ment of Vocational Education
Programs, Survey Report, Westat.

10 These figures have not been adjusted for inflation.

LL Schools that fit neither category (community college or vocational-technical institute)
indicate a lower participation rate (67 percent) but there are very few such institutions.

12 Because it is not possible to make a break of school districts at exactly 25% of students,
26.7% of students and 3.2% of districts are in the quartile with the highest Chapter 1
allocations. See Iiterim Report, Chapter 2, Table 2.7.

13 Interim Report, Chapter 2, Table 2.9.

4 Section 235 (b).

15 Districts with multiple high schools include about 47% of the high schools in the United
States.

16 Muraskin, L. (1989), National Assessment of Vocational Education, Final Report, Volume I,
Implementation of the Perkins Act, U.S. Department of Education. See especially Chapter 2.

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds 33 27

BEST COPY AVAILABLE


Defining Special Population Students

Each transcript study includes a set of questionnaires for students, teachers, and
schools, and a student assessment. These additional data sources were used
along with the transcript data to classify students (i.e., the high school graduate
samples) into Perkins-specified special population categories. Table T.13 lists the
definitions used for these classification categories.

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) is a nationwide study
of students enrolled in less-than-two-year postsecondary institutions, community
and junior colleges, four-year colleges, and major universities located in the
United States and Puerto Rico. Undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional
students, both those who receive financial aid and those who do not receive aid,
participate in the NPSAS.

The NPSAS was originally developed to provide information on financial aid
programs and their effects, but is also useful for other purposes, such as
determining the nature and extent of participation in postsecondary education.
It collects information on student demographics, family income, education
expenses, employment, education program and aspirations, parental
demographic characteristics, parental support, and how students and their
families meet the costs of postsecondary education. A major advantage of the
NPSAS is that it includes data from proprietary institutions, which are often
excluded from other postsecondary data collection efforts.

The first NPSAS was conducted during the 1986-87 school year. Data were
gathered from institutional records on about 60,000 students at 1,100
postsecondary institutions. About 43,000 of these students and 13,000 parents
also completed questionnaires.

The second NPSAS was conducted in 1989-90. This study collected information
from institutional records on about 69,000 students at 1,130 postsecondary
institutions. About 51,400 students and 16,000 parents also completed
computer-assisted telephone interviews.

The National Assessment of Vocational Education used the undergraduate
samples of both the 1986-87 and the 1989-90 NPSAS to examine recent patterns
of participation in postsecondary vocational education, and changes in
participation over time.

Most of the data collected in the 1986-87 and 1989-90 NPSAS are comparable,
but differences in the sampling for the two studies impose limits on over-time
comparisons. In the 1986-87 NPSAS, school records and student interviews were

Technical Appeitdix : 7-33

187



Volume V

. Membership on NOICC, whose primary purpose is to increase
coordination among programs at the Departments of Education,
Labor, Commerce, Agriculture, and Defense.

National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee. Following a new
interagency agreement in 1990, NOICC’s membership now includes: ED's
Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education, ED's Administrator for
the National Center for Education Statistics, ED's Commissioner of the
Rehabilitation Services Administration, ED's Director of the Office of Bilingual
Education and Minority Language Affairs, DOL's Commissioner of Labor
Statistics, DOL's Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, the
Department of Agriculture's Undersecretary for Small Community and Rural
Development, the Department of Commerce's Assistant Secretary for Economic
Development, and the Department of Defense's Assistant Secretary for Force
Management and Personnel.

Vocational Education Data System. Perkins also requires that ED cooperate
with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, and NOICC with respect
to vocational education data systems. NOICC has taken the lead on this
initiative. Its interagency agreement establishes the improvement of
“coordination and communication concerning the use of education and
employment data" among the various agencies as its first purpose. The second
stated purpose is to “develop and implement. . . an occupational information
system to meet the common occupational information needs of vocational
education, and employment and training programs at the national, state, and
local level.”3 Both NCES and OVAE have been working with NOICC to develop
a master crosswalk between all of the various systems.

3 Interagency Agreement of the National Occupational Information Coordinating Committec. Signed by
participating members between March 19, 1990, and June 4, 1990,
AS Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs

119



REFERENCES

National Assessment of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress R1

206



Volume V

Table A-3.11
JTPA Services Provided by Regular and Vocational Districts

(Percent)
Regular Vocational
Districts Districts
Percent reporting students All Districts All Districts
receiving services funded by Districts w/JTPA Districts w/JTPA
JIPA Services Services
Summer employment di S4 43 64
Work experience a H 36 53
Counseling 18 34 40 59
Remediation/Tutoring 16 31 32 48
Other 7 12 21 32

Sources: Oninibus Surveys of Regular Districts, Version A, and Vocational Districts

14i

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs


collected in the fall of 1986. The 1989-90 sample was initially drawn in the fall of
1989, but it was periodically refreshed during the year. As a result, students who
were not enrolled in the fall but enrolled later in the school year were also
included in the 1989-90 sample. However, these data include a variable that
enables users to restrict the sample to students enrolled in the fall, permitting
comparisons with the 1986-87 NPSAS sample. In this report, we used the
full-year 1689-90 sample when examining recent enzollments, and the fall-only
1989-90 sample when examining changes from 1986-87 to 1989-90.

The National Assessment samples include 34,544 undergraduates in the 1986-87
sample, 46,788 undergraduates in the full-year 1989-90 sample, and 40,324
undergraduates in the fall-only 1989-90 sample. These data were analyzed using
STRATTAB, a proprietary program developed by MPR Associates; this program
uses a Taylor series approximation technique to estimate standard errors for
statistics derived from complex sampling designs.

Details on the methodology for the 1989-90 NPSAS are available in Shephard

and Malizio (1992), and in Tuma (1993). The 1986-87 NPSAS is described in
Smith, Garcia, and Malitz (1929).

Schools and Staffing Survey

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) was designed to provide information on
the characteristics of secondary schoo] teachers and administrators and their
workplaces. The SASS is a comprehensive data base of information on public and
private K-12 education derived from four survey instruments: the Teacher
Demand and Shortage Questionnaire, School Questionnaire, School
Administrator Questionnaire, and Teacher Questionnaire.

The SASS was administered for the first time in 1987-88 and for the second time
in 1990-91; a third administration is underway for school year 1993-94.

Schools are the primary sampling units for the SASS, with a sample of teachers
selected from each school. Public school districts are included in the sample
when one or more of their schools is selected. The 1990-91 SASS, like the 1987-88
SASS, drew a probability sample of approximately 12,800 schools (9,300 public
and 3,500 private), 65,000 teachers (52,000 public and 13,000 private), and 5,500
public school districts.

We used only the public sector questionnaires from the 1990-91 SASS for the
National Assessment’s analyses of teacher characteristics and teacher shortages.
The 1990-91 Teacher Demand and Shortage Survey was used to examine
potential shortages of vocational teachers, and the 1990-91 Public School Teacher
Survey was used to examine vocational teachers’ demographic characteristics
and educational backgrounds.

Technical Appendix 7-35

189


Volume V

Table 3.1

Federal Employment and Training Programs for Out-of-School Youth and
Adults Not Enrolled in Advanced Degree Programs

Counsel- Classroom Job
ing & |Remedial/ | Occupa- | On-the- Job Place-
Assess- } Basic Skills tional Job Search ment Job
Targeted Groups | ment Training Training | Training | Training | Training | Creation
Economically 40 34 37 23 26 2 27
disadvantaged
Youth under 22 37 36 27 17 17 23 6
years old
Physical or 29 21 21 16 16 22 7
mental
disabilities
Educationally 10 22 9 5 5 8 4
disadvantaged
Unemployed or 20 12 18 13 4 15 18
dislocated
workers
Veterans 15 il 8 7 7 9 4d
Ethnic/ racial 18 8 14 10 8 13 8
groups and
women
Migrant or 8 9 5 3 4 6 3
seasonal farm
workers
Older workers 9 7 8 6 8 8 5

Source: General Accounting Office Briefing for Congress, July 24, 1992

The purpose of the 1990 Perkins Act is to improve U.S. competitiveness by
focusing on the academic and occupational skill competencies needed to work in
a technologically advanced society. Comprehensive high schools, vocational high
schools, area vocational/technical centers, community colleges, and public
technical institutes actually provide the vocational training under Perkins. The
Act targets resources especially on special population students: the economically
and educationally disadvantaged; individuals with disabilities; limited English
proficient (LEP) students; single parents; and participants in sex equity
programs, among others.

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programe, 5
D ke



Volume V

Table A-2.1
Percent of State Secondary Vocational Directors Reporting Changes in Time
Devoted to Various Activities in Relation to Changes in State Staff, 1990-1993

Increased } About the | Decreased
Activity or Responsibility Time Same Time Time

States with staff decline of 50 percent or greater,
1990-1993 (n=15)

Coordination of vocational education with other 60 26.7 67
education programs

Training /technical assistance to localities 40 33.3 26.7

Distribution /monitoring of federal/state funds 53.3 33.3 13.3
(including audits)

Development of student performance measures 86.7 13.3 0

Responsibilities concerning special populations 60 40 0

Responsibilities concerning business/labor 46.7 26.7 20
partnerships

States with staff decline less than 50 percent, 1990-
1993 (n=13)

Coordination of vocational education with other 92.3 0 77
education programs

Training / technical assistance to localities 6L5 23.1 154

Distribution / monitoring of federal /state funds 61.5 38.5 0
(including audits)

Development of student performance measures 92.3 77 0

Responsibilities concerning special populations 53.8 46.2 0

Responsibilities concerning business/labor 46.2 46.2 77
partnerships

States with staff increase, 1990-1993 (n=13)

Coordination of vocational education with other 92.3 77 0
education programs

Training/technical assistance to localities 53.8 46.2 0

Distribution /monitoring of federal /state funds 46.2 38.5 15.4

(including audits)
Development of student performance measures 84.6 154 0
Responsibilities concerning special populations 61.5 30.8 77

Responsibilities concerning business /labor 69.2 30.8 0
partnerships

NOTE: Percentages do not add to 100 across rows because not all states conduct each of the
activiti

Source: 1993 Followup Survey of Secondary State Directors

A-4+ The State Administration of the Perkins Act

1i6



Volume V

Disbursement Methods. In 1990, Grubb et. al. found considerable variation in
the states’ methods of distributing their 8 percent set-aside funds.?¢ According to
state directors of secondary vocational education, most states closely control
allocation of the 8 percent set-aside funds, with 43 percent using the RFP process
or some other discretionary means. About one in ten states distributes set-aside
funds by formula, and about one-fourth use a combination of formula and
discretion (see Appendix Table A-3.3).

Bailis and Grubb conclude that the majority of states “have been using 8 percent
set-aside funds in a way that allows them substantial discretion, and thus in
theory allows them to craft coherent state policies and use 8 percent set-aside
funds in furtherance of such policies.”27

Clarity of Terms

Analysts have described the federal definitions of “cooperative agreements” and
“coordination” as vague and have suggested that, as a result, the states have
interpreted these concepts differently and have used the funds in extremely
different ways.?8 NCRVE reports that “[w]hile the 8% funds support a variety of
innovative programs and many collaborative efforts between vocational
programs and JTPA, they are not consistently used for coordination with public
education programs.” In some instances, the state policy amounts to “little
more than giving the funds to educational institutions to provide whatever
services they want.”30

Although there may be some validity to these concerns, it is also true that the
federal government is stuck between two difficult alternatives. On the one hand,
defining these terms more explicitly might add greater coherence to coordination
efforts and make the analyst's task in evaluating coordination easier. On the
other, greater specificity would reduce the flexibility of the current set-aside
provisions and, undoubtedly, add to state and local complaints about the heavy
hard of federal regulation.

Sumunary

Several activities and initiatives underway at the federal level aim to encourage
coordination by states, districts, and institutions. The most promising federal
approach appears to be the JTPA 8 percent set-aside, widely thought to be a very
useful incentive to encourage flexible collaboration at the local level, despite state
differences in the allocation and permissible uses of these funds.

COORDINATION AT THE STATE LEVEL

Most of the Perkins Act’s coordination requirements relate to the states.
Furthermore, states generally go beyond the federal coordination requirements

Coordinating Vocational Fduction wd Federal fob-Training Programs oy 69


Volume V

report that federal funds fully cover the costs of such services (Table 1.8). Some
45 percent of districts with individual grants and 44 percent of districts in
consortia are using non-federal funds as well to pay for these services. In
addition, a sizable minority of districts (42% individually funded districts and
39% of those in consortia) provide services only to the extent possible with
federal funds.

Table 1.8
Sufficiency of Resources for Services to Special Populations:
School Districts With Individual Grants, School Districts in Consortia, and
Postsecondary Institutions, FY93 (Percent)

Districts With
Individual Districts in Postsecondary

Sufficiency of Resources Grants Consortia Institutions
Federal funds cover the 13 18 12

costs
Nonfederal funds are 45 44 74

also used to cover

costs?
Federal funds do not 42 39 14

cover costs; costs

covered only to

extent possible with

federal funds

® Questionnaire to school districts said “only” nonfederal funds were used to pay for services
while questionnaire to postsecondary institutions did not include the term “only.” Nonetheless,
the other response choices exclude only the possibility that nonfederal funds are used, not that
nonfederal funds are the only source of funds.

Sources: 1993 Followup Surveys of School Districts and Postsecondary Institutions

Findings on Expenditures From the Funding Case Studies

Among the Funding Case Study sites, the large school districts appear to be
using Perkins II-C funds somewhat differently than the smaller districts. 19
Districts with substantial funds are investing in staff more than in equipment
(Figure 1.1). Staff supported with Perkins II-C funds include instructional aides,
guidance counselors, coordinators of special populations, and teachers or

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds a 21
32


Volume V

of two-year postsecondary institutions do not coordinate with any local
employment-related entities.

Postsecondary Institutions and Barriers. The Omnibus Survey indicates that
either good progress has been made in reducing barriers to cooperation, or
perhaps the complaints about such barriers have been exaggerated. About half
(49%) of the two-year public postsecondary institutions surveyed responded that
no factors have inhibited providing joint services with JTPA; the same proportion
reported that no factors inhibited providing services jointly with JOBS (see
Appendix Table A-3.14.) Barriers were cited for JOBS less frequently than for
JTPA. Most often, respondents on JOBS indicated there were “other” barriers to
coordination, not specified on the survey’s list. But the barriers selected from the
survey’s list do shed light on the perceptions of postsecondary institutions,
which usually cited barriers associated with resources:

. By far the most commonly cited JTPA barrier was burdensome
paperwork or reporting requirements, cited by almost half of those
respondents who listed at least one JTPA barrier. Burdensome
paperwork was cited less frequently (15 percent) as a JOBS barrier.

° Lack of time or resources for coordination was cited as a JTPA
barrier by one-third and as a JOBS barrier by about one-quarter.

° Inadequate resources from JTPA/JOBS and lack of state or
institutional resources for JTPA/JOBS clients were frequently cited
as barriers to cooperation with both programs.

Different purposes and goals was also high on the list for both JTPA anda JOBS
(26 and 14%, respectively).

About one-fourth of the institutions indicating there were barriers to
coordination with JTPA cited difficulty in meeting JTPA performance standards.
Apparently, most institutions have become familiar with performance standards
and have adjusted to the requirements. Forty percent of all two-year public
postsecondary institutions have experience with performance-based contracts for
classroom instruction, and more than half (62%) of the institutions that provide
classroom training to JTPA students did so under performance-based contracts:

. Thirty-six percent reported that all of their JTPA classroom
instruction contracts were performance-based.

° An additional 26 percent reported that at least some classroom
instruction was performance-based.

° Thirty-eight percent reported that no such contracts were
performance-based.

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs 87

98



Volume V

Although there was considerable debate on this point prior to enactment, the
1990 Act did not take a position on the division of basic grant funds between
secondary and postsecondary sectors. Like previous legislation, the 1990 Act left
tnis decision entirely to the states. The legislation did, however, make the
decision on secondary/ postsecondary division of funds more visible, by
requiring states to indicate the expected shares to each sector in their state plans
and to explain the rationales for their choices. In states in which 15 percent or less
of basic grant funds are allocated to either the secondary or postsecondary sector,
the legislation allows that sector to forgo the federally specified formula for the
allocation of basic grant funds to local recipients.

The Secondary/Postsecondary Split

Information presented in the Interim Report of the National Assessment showed
that, nationally, 38.1 percent of local basic grant (Title II-C) funds were
distributed to the postsecondary and 61.9 percent to the secondary level in FY92.4
These rates represent a small decrease from the 40.2 percent of basic grant funds
allocated to the postsecondary level in the final year of the previous legislation.
State data on local awards updated to include FY93 show that the decline in
funds to the postsecondary level continued into the second year of the new
legislation, with the postsecondary share of Title II-C funds for FY93 totaling 37.8
percent (Table 1.1). This means that over the two-year period the decrease in Title
II-C funds allocated to postsecondary recipients was approximately 6 percent.5

It should be noted, however, that the postsecondary share of all Perkins funds
was slightly higher than its share of Title IJ-C funds, because postsecondary
institutions received somewhat larger shares of funds under other parts of the
Perkins legislation. Their greatest proportional share occurred in the state
allocation of Title III Tech-Prep awards, where postsecondary institutions
received 69.6 percent of the funds awarded in FY92. Nonetheless, combining
Title II and all portions of the FY92 basic grant for which local award data were
available raised the postsecondary share only a few points, and it did not alter
the slight decline in funds to the postsecondary sector between FY91 and FY92.6

It appears that even the limited 1990 statutory requirements on secondary /
postsecondary shares exerted an impact on state decisions. State-level local
award data now available for two years indicate that far fewer states made
changes in secondary / postsecondary shares between FY92 and FY93 than made
changes between FY91 and FY92. Only one state increased or decreased the share
toa sector by 1? percent or more between 1992 and 1993, compared with 10 states
between 1991. .d 1992. That substantial share changes occurred in the first year
of the new legislation but not the second suggests that the statewide needs
assessment and share estimates required by the legislation did lead to
examination of secondary/ postsecondary share decisions. Most of the individual
state changes in share allocations that resulted appear to have led to somewhat
smaller shares for postsecondary providers.

Nu

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds


Volume V

in their state-level coordination activities and also establish policies and practices
that influence local coordination.

States usually conduct coordination initiatives through state-specific agencies
such as the SCOVEs and State Job Training Coordination Councils, but “super
agencies” with authority over all vocational education and job-training programs
are becoming more common. In an analysis conducted for the National
Assessment, Alt found that “{i]n recent years, many states have created
supercouncils in order to address growing fragmentation of service delivery and
duplication of efforts. Generally, these councils bring together representatives
from the business and education communities and from state government,
including the heads of agencies that oversee human resources-related programs.
In most cases they have been assigned the functions of existing advisory and
oversight councils, consolidating most or all of these councils’ resources.” 3!

Alt found that the business community believes that such bodies will benefit the
nation:

National policy organizations such as the National Alliance of Business
continue to believe that states and local communities need to build
strong workforce investment systems. These systems should be developed
jointly by the public and private sectors; they should include the whole
range of education and training providers; and they should respond
directly to the needs of both employers and workers. Moreover,
training needs to be closely coordinated with local economic
conditions and industrial bases; it must incorporate occupational
standards and competencies defined by industry groups .. . Training
system planners should also work cooperatively with agencies and
community-based organizations that promote economic
development.

Development of Supercouncils

Policymakers first addressed the need for a single state coordinating council in
the late 1980s and early 1990s, when both the Perkins and JTPA laws were being
reauthorized.** The Job Training Reform Amendments enacted in September
1992 authorized the voluntary creation of state human resource investment
councils (SHRICs) to improve coordination among federal human resource
development programs, to advise governors on human investment needs, and to
recommend strategies to meet those needs. In order for a state to shift funds from
existing oversight councils to the SHRIC, its membership must include state
agencies responsible for administering applicable federal human resource
programs; local public education agencies; postsecondary institutions; secondary
or postsecondary vocational institutions; community-based organizations;
business and industry; and organized labor. Optional members for the SHRIC
include representatives from local welfare agencies, public housing agencies,

Coordinating Vocational Eauentigagid Federal Job-Training Programs


Volume V

Effectiveness of Supercouncils. if federal programs continue to advocate them,
we must ask how effective supercouncils have been so far: Have they reduced
service fragmentation and duplication? Have they actually improved the quality
of vocational education and job training services? By consolidating councils or
agencies, have the supercouncils reduced costs?

State agencies often prepare reports on the supercouncil for the official or
legislative body that oversees the council. Not surprisingly, most of them offer
positive assessments. However, Bailis and Grubb found that surveys of program
officials on the level of coordination or the existence of given practices generally
lacked objective standards against which to measure the observations. They
found neither objective evaluation of supercouncils by outside analysts nor
analyses of similar state government reorganizations.*° Although state-level
administrators claim success in improving collaboration among agencies, there is
little evidence to support their conclusions.

Alt’s 1994 analysis+! on the status of supercouncils reached similar conclusions:

In the year since the Bailis and Grubb review, little has changed in the
literature on supercouncils. Most staff people contacted for this paper
ventured that it is premature to attempt to assess the effectiveness of
these councils, especially since many were formed only within the last
six months or year. No internal agency studies or published materials
were available that measured effectiveness, either qualitatively or
quantitatively, even for those councils that have existed for a couple of
years. One supercouncil director mentioned that her staff had not yet
had enough time to plan how they would measure effectiveness in the
future.

State-Level Coordination in Secondary Education

Although vocational education agencies must coordinate with multiple
employment-related state agencies, it appears that the JTPA and Perkins
requirements have been relatively successful in encouraging them to
communicate with one another. In the Omnibus Surveys conducted for the
National. Assessment, only a few state directors of secondary vocational
education reported that their agency had no interactions with most of the job-
training programs, particularly JTPA and Adult Basic Education (see Appendix
Table A-3.7):

. Only 7 percent of the state directors of secondary vocational
education reported no interaction with JTPA.

. Only 6 percent reported no interaction with Adult Basic Education.

76 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs

R'?


Volume V

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The Perkins ‘Act provides over $1 billion each year to improve vocational
programs and help special population students succeed in vocational education.
The bulk of the funds are allocated by formula to states and, through the states,
to local school districts and postsecondary institutions. States retain a portion of
the funds to use for administrative and other purposes.

Many state vocational education agencies are administering Perkins-funded
programs with fewer resources than in the past. Education budgets were cut in
the early 1990s, and the Perkins Act reduced states’ shares of the basic grant
funds they receive. The Act also changed state responsibilities in significant
ways. State vocational agencies are adapting to their new circumstances by
changing priorities, reassigning staff, and sometimes reorganizing.

More broadly, federal education and employment training programs are
receiving more attention and scrutiny as a range of events — international
competition, organizational restructuring, military downsizing, and new
technologies — are dislocating workers and forcing other changes in the
economy. Providing employment training to adults and out-of-school youth is
becoming a higher priority. As the need for training has increased, it has become
evident that the federal government already has myriad training programs,
many of them providing similar services to similar clientele. This has raised the
question of whether these resources are being used efficiently — specifically,
whether the nation can get greater benefit from them by increasing coordination.

ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS VOLUME

Allocation of Perkins Funds

The 1984 Perkins Act divided local basic grant funds into program improvement
funds and numerous restricted-use set-asides, with each pool of funds allocated
by separate criteria. The previous National Assessment found that this approach
resulted in funds being scattered and fragmented; few sites received enough to

support meaningful change, and funds were not reaching those students most in
need of federal assistance.

To improve both grant size and targeting, the 1990 Perkins Act merged much of
the set-aside money with program improvement funds and required that these
merged funds be allocated based on a formula that heavily weights the
concentration of special population students at each site. Minimum grant sizes
were also established to ensure that grants are of sufficient size to have an

Introduction 7 *



CHAPTER 2 APPENDIX

Volume V

The State Administration of the Perkins Act


Volume V

goals and shorter term objectives as measurable outcomes. The Oregon
Workforce Quality Council is responsible for reaching these goals, which apply
not only to education and training but also to environmental quality, health care,
social equity, public safety, and transportation. Many of those related to
education build upon the work of the National Education Goals Panel and the
Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills.

Leveraging funds from different sources, developing and/or approving budgets, and
setting funding priorities

Before supercouncils, human resource development programs were scattered
widely among the states’ agencies and it was difficult and time-consuming to
estimate the total amount of funds spent for these services. As a result,

policymakers often made funding decisions based on incomplete or misleading
data.

In Massachusetts, the MASSJobs Council annually surveys the Regional
Employment Boards, which are local counterparts of the council, and other
relevant agencies. The survey reveals where workforce development funds are
being spent. In New Jersey, the supercouncil recently added a member from the
Office of Management and Budget to receive continuing information on funding
sources and restrictions.

Oregon supports its Workforce Quality Council and many education and job
training activities with funds from the state lottery. Twenty work force
development programs in Oregon received $8 million in lottery funds in 1991,
with an additional $2.3 million allocated from general funds for tech-prep
development. The Council has the authority to approve or reject the annual
budgets and operating plans of the individual agencies that oversee education
and training before they are submitted to the governor.

Program development and adininistration

Some state councils have effected dramatic changes by creating strong local
boards to contribute ideas and implement new policies. In 1988 Massachusetts
pioneered this effort by expanding the functions of the existing PICs to create 16
Regional Employment Boards (REBs), each chaired by a private industry
member, Technical assistance and training activities so far have included two
annual conferences of REB members and a retreat for REB chairpersons. Funds
available for REBs to develop new programs that are more responsive to the
public’s needs have been increased. In 1992-93 each REB designed a Workforce
Development Policy Blueprint, essentially a combined assessment of local
training needs and the capacity for meeting those needs.

Other state councils are actively trying to reduce duplication and overlap of
services. For example, Ohio’s supercouncil, formed in 1993, is beginning, to

74 Coordinating Vocational Eden qu! Federal Job-Training Programs
JO



Table T.15

Classification Variables for Native American Tribal Case Study Selection

Educational Level@

Secondary Program enrolls students 19 years old or under in a
secondary-level curriculum.

Postsecondary Program involves at least one postsecondary institution.

Adult Program involves retraining of adults 18 years old or
over in vocational and/or academic subjects.

Dropout Program targets high school-aged dropouts.

Tribal Participation?
Single tribe
Multiple tribe

Program participants are members of only one tribe.
Program participants are members of more than one tribe
(even though only one tribe may have direct
administrative responsibility).

Region
West
East
South
Midwest

Urbanicity4
Isolated
Rural
Suburban

Urban

Program serves tribal members who can reach a
significant urban area only by driving several hours or
more.

Program serves a tribal community located in a
nonurban, generally agricultural labor market.

Program serves a tribal population living within regular
commuting distance of a significant urban area.
Program serves a tribal population living primarily
within a city of at least 50,000.

Targets Special Populations
Yes

No
Skills
Single Program focuses on one vocational field.
Multiple Program includes more than one vocational area.
Employment Targets
Tribal Tribal corporations and reservation industry.
Local Industry that is outside the reservation but local.
Other Other, usually unspecified, and/or combination of

reservation and outside jobs.

* Program characteristics used for site selection.

Source: Hudis (1993)

T-46

Technical Appendix



Volume V

16 Bailis & Grubb (1993), p.2-2.

17 Grubb, W.N., et al. (1990). Order Amidst Complexity; The Status of Coordination Among
Vocational Education, Job Training Partnership, and Welfare-to-Work Programs, National Center
for Research in Vocational Education.

18 Grubb, WN., et al. (1989), Innovation Versus Turf: Coordination Between Vocational Education
and Job Training Partnership Act Programs, National Center for Research in Vocational
Education.

19 Grubb et al. (1990), p.8.

20 Grubb, W.N., & McDonnell, L.M. (1991), Local Systems of Vocational Education and Job
Training: Diversity, Interdependence, and Effectiveness, p.23, National Center for Research in
Vocational Education.

21 Kusserow, R. (1991), Services Integration: A Twenty-Year Retrospective, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, p. 5.

22 Alt (1994), p.10.

23 Bailis & Grubb (1993), p. 4-7.

24 Grubb et al. (1990), p.37.

25 Bailis & Grubb (1993), p.6.

26 Grubb et al. (1990), p.35.

27 Bailis & Grubb (1993), p. 5-6.

28 Grubb et al. (1991).

29 Grubb, W.N. (1992b), Vertical “Ladders” for Education and Training, paper for the Committee
on Postsecondary Education and Training for the Workforce of the National Academy of
Sciences.

30 Bailis & Grubb (1993), p5.

31 Alt (1994), p.i.

32 Downs, S. (1991), Streamlining and Integrating Human Resources Development Services for
Adults, National Governors’ Association. Cited in Alt (1994), p.3.

34 JTPA, Title VIL Sec. 702.

35 JTPA, Title VIL, See. 701 (a).

36 Alt (1994), p. 11.

4
lil
100

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs



Volume V

compared to 84 percent of regular districts with JTPA services). All other types of
services listed, however, are offered more frequently by vocational districts than
by regular districts (see Appendix Table A-3.11):

Program Planning. Most JTPA programs in both regular and vocational districts
are planned jointly by JTPA and school administrators. This coordination of
services, presumably designed to ensure that the JTPA services are an integral
part of students’ overall vocational program, occurs in more than half of the
vocational districts that offer JTPA services (see Appendix Table A-3.12).

° Sixty-nine percent of vocational districts report joint planning.
. Sixty percent report joint selection of students.

Funding. Survey data on funding also indicate that JTPA programs play a larger
role in vocational districts than ir regular school districts (Table 3.7):

° The average amount for all vocational schoo! districts, including
those that do not receive any JTPA funds, is more than twice that
for regular school districts.

. The average arnount received by vocational districts that receive
JTPA funds is slightly less than $115,000, and represents about 3
percent of the district’s total revenues.

Adult Participation in Secondary Programs

As might be expected, secondary districts are more likely to coordinate with
JIPA if they enroll adult students. Using Omnibus Survey data, Bailis and
Grubb*6 found that regular districts that operate schools exclusively for

secondary students are less likely than districts with adult students to have JTPA
programs:

The proportions [of districts] providing funds for JTPA clients
was 20 percent for districts with high school students only, 37
percent for those with a balance of high school and adult
students, and 44 percent among those with mostly adult
students.

The same pattern appears for vocational districts. According to Bailis and Grubb:

Among vocational districts with high school students only, 57
percent report some students supported by JTPA, compared to
76 percent of districts with both secondary and postsecondary
students and 79 percent of districts with mostly adults. .. . These
results indicate that the use of vocational districts by JTPA is less

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal job-Training Programs 85

96


Sample Selection

From the Omnibus Survey school and district samples (discussed above), 20 sites
where at least one institution responded to the surveys were selected as
Community Case Study sites. The original sample selection provided for 40 sites
— 20 main sites, each with an alternate site matched on the dimensions listed
below. In the final sample, one site declined to participate and one site could not
participate for other reasons; both were replaced with their alternate sites.

Sites were selected so that:

¢ All four U.S. regions would be represented, with at least two sites in
each region; the largest or second largest district in each region would
be selected with certainty.

* Atleast ten states would be represented, including at least two of the
five smallest states.

* After the four largest urban areas were selected, the remaining sites
would represent a balance of urban, suburban, and rural areas.

* Sites would be selected to reflect wide variation in area poverty,
unemployment, the secondary / postsecondary Perkins funding split,
general industrial composition, and minority population composition.

* Selected sites would include nonrecipients as well as recipients of 1990
Perkins funding.

These criteria were generally met. The final sample included sites from 18 states,
ranging from scattered rural areas to some of the country’s most densely
populated urban areas. Secondary district enrollments at the visited sites ranged
from 180 students to 247,000 students. The minority population in the
communities ranged from nearly nonexistent to over 80 percent, and the local
economies ranged from severely depressed to robust. A wide variety of local and
state educational approaches and philosophies were represented as well. All but
one of the visited communities had some type of secondary vocational school,
and every site had a two-year public postsecondary school (usually a community
college).

The selected sites (given pseudonyms to protect their anonymity) are briefly
described below. They are listed roughly in order from smallest to largest, based
on secondary district enrollments.

¢ Farmville. This is the smallest case study district, with fewer than 200
students attending one high school. It is ina rural agricultural community

T-38 j Technical Appendix

(on)
tO



district's vocational schools, and one of three campuses of the local
community college.

Big Sky. This is a large, majority white urban community ina
southwestern state. The school district is about 40 percent black and 40
percent Hispanic. The visit included four of approximately 34 high
schools, and the occupational magnet school. One of six branches of the
local community college was also visited.

* Lake View. This is a major urban center in the central part of the
country, with several ethnically distinct communities. The city is majority
black. The site visit included five of about 65 high schools, including one
vocational school and others that specialize in particular vocational areas
such as business and agriculture.

¢ Portside. This community is a major eastern urban center, with a mix of
minority and ethnic populations, including many recent immigrants. Of
its more than 100 high schools, the site visit included a business high
school, a vocational /cooperative education high school, and a
comprehensive magnet school. The visit also included a technical college,
a college with two-year and four-year programs, and an adult learning
center.

The goai of the site selection process was to pick sites that collectively provide
sufficient variation in local communities so that most major types of situations
with respect to the implementation and effects of the Perkins Act and funding for
vocational education would be visited. However, the selected sites are not
representative in a statistical sense of any areas, districts, schools, vocational
programs, or students.

Data Collection

The case study site visits were conducted from November 1992 to March 1993,
the second year of implementation of the 1990 Perkins Act. Immediately before
data collection began, all interviewers attended a three-day training session that
included training for both the Community Case Studies and the Funding Case
Studies (discussed below).

Two interviewers participated in each site visit, with each visit lasting from one
to two weeks. Each site visit included interviews with as many of the following
individuals as possible: district superintendent, director of vocational education,
finance officer, and directors of programs for special population students
(disabled, disadvantaged, limited English proficient); principal or dean and other
school administrative staff, teaching staff, counselors, and students at regular
high schools, vocational high schools, and postsecondary institutions; parents of
high school students; and business and community representatives. Teacher and

Technical Appendix T-41

ro
i<o)
a


Volume V

AIlJTPA programs are administered by the Employment and Training
Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor. JTPA requires no state matching
funds, except for a 100 percent matching under the 8 percent set-aside provision
of Title II. The state designates a local Service Delivery Area (SDA), determines
how the SDA uses the federal grants, and sets goals and objectives which include
coordination with other agencies. States must use Private Industry Councils
(PICs), with public sector members from Employment Service, welfare agencies,
and economic development agencies, to advise on training plans and services.
However, the Job Training Reform Amendments to JTPA (September 1992)
authorize the voluntary creation of State Human Resources Investment Councils
(SHRIC), which may replace the State Job Training Coordinating Council.
SHRICs are discussed in more detail in the section on coordination efforts at the
state level.

JTPA is administered through local institutions such as community-based
organizations, proprietary schools, private firms, and labor unions. Some
services, however, are delivered through community colleges, technical
institutes, high schools, and vocational schools. Classroom-based vocational
training, on-the-job training, and pre-employment training are the services most
commonly provided. Other services include assessment, employment
counseling, job placement services, remedial and basic education, pre-
employment or motivational/work maturity training, and work experience or
trial employment. These programs are generally designed to provide short-term
training and to find employment for the client as quickly as possible (although
some JTPA clients do enroll in associate-degree or certificate programs at
postsecondary institutions).

The Adult Education Act helps states educate adults who lack basic literacy
skills, defined as the ability to read, write, and speak English, to compute and
solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary to function on the job and in
society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential. In
addition to helping adults acquire basic literacy skills, Adult Education programs
help participants find job training and subsequent employment, complete their
education to at least the secondary level, and school their own children in basic
literacy skills. Eligible participants are undereducated adults aged 16 and older
who are not enrolled in secondary school. Special emphasis is placed on adults
whose basic skills are at the fifth-grade level or below.

Under the National Apprenticeship Act, enacted in 1937, the Department of
Labor brings employers and employees together to encourage establishment of
apprenticeship programs. These programs combine classroom instruction and
on-the-job training ranging from two to five years to prepare candidates for a
highly skilled trade, and award them nationally recognized certification. In
general, the program is open to anyone at least 16 years old who is physically
able to do the work of the trade, but some trades have additional eligibility
requirements such as a high school diploma or passage of an entry examination.

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Trainng Programs 53

64


Volume V

CHAPTER 3.

COORDINATING VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND FEDERAL
JOB-TRAINING PROGRAMS

INTRODUCTION

Critics sometimes charge that the federal government often creates new
programs without taking into account similar existing programs. In federal
employment training programs, says the National Youth Employment Coalition,
this lack of coordination causes resources to be spread much too thinly,
burdening state and local administrators with “overlap, duplication, and often
conflicting mandates, definitions, eligibility and reporting requirements.”!

Although most analysts agree that coordination between the vocational
education and the employment and training systems should be improved, the
foremost researchers on the subject find that the extent of the “coordination
problem” is still open to dispute.? To study this issue, the National Assessment of
Vocational Education included in the Omnibus Survey a series of questions
related to coordination. In addition, an extensive review of the literature on the
coordination of Perkins, JTPA, and other job training programs was conducted
for the National Assessment by Bailis and Grubb; this chapter draws heavily on
that review.3 The Assessment also sponsored an analysis of a state-level
restructuring that has won many experts’ support: the creation of super agencies
or supercouncils.+

All studies of Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) coordination agree that
coordination between JTPA and other job-training programs has increased over
time,5 although researchers differ on the speed of increase. However, many
national policy organizations® have recently concluded that integration of
services across programs in the human resource development field is inadequate
and that a comprehensive work-force development system is needed.”

This chapter provides an overview of issues involved with coordination. It
examines the general nature of the concern about program overlap and the need
for coordination. It reviews statutory requirements for coordination between
vocational education programs and other federal job-training efforts. It explores
barriers to coordination and reviews coordination efforts at the federal, state, and
local levels. It also discusses the effectiveness of various collaborative efforts such
as jointly funded model programs, set-aside provisions, state “supercouncils” of
several kinds, and “one-stop” centers. [t concludes that, as these programs get
closer to their intended clients, cooperation is more visible and more effective,
especially in several of the model programs.

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Preys 49


Volume V

In fact, there was no reason to assume that the 1990 legislation would decrease
the percentage of schools receiving support. Evidence from studies of the
implementation of the 1984 legislation showed that funds were already targeted
on particular schools or programs. !¢ The intent of the new rules was to ensure
targeting to schools and/or programs with concentrations of disadvantaged
students.

Case Study Findings on Directly Funded Districts

Information from case studies of eight school districts with individual grants (the
Funding Case Studies) reinforce survey findings and expand our understanding
of the within-district targeting of funds. These districts were selected for study
because they had major increases or decreases in their basic grant funds under
the 1990 Act. Most are large districts and are not typical of all grantees. Almost
all of these districts have targeted some resources to specific schools based upon
special populations, but there are still substantial resources allocated on the basis
of other criteria (Figure 1.1). None of the districts described allocations to
programs based on concentrations of special need students, although within
individual schools this form of targeting was mentioned. In other words, case
study districts decided first which schools would receive funds; then, within
those schools, some district (or school) staff decided which programs would
receive assistance. (However, systematic information on within-school targeting
was not collected as part of the study.)

Six of the eight districts explicitly target funds to schools with concentrations of
special populations, but the proportion of II-C funds targeted varies
considerably. Across the districts, the proportions range from almost all basic
grant monies in the two smallest districts (with only two high schools) to less
than half the funds in some of the largest districts. In most of the large districts,
central staff or committees also consider individual school needs for equipment,
curriculum materials, or other resources in allocating resources. Their decisions
about need play a significant independent role in determining actual allocations
to schools, sometimes diluting the effects of targeting on special populations.

In addition, almost all the districts retain funds for services described as district-
wide, such as career guidance and vocational assessment, special need
coordinators, in-service training, and administrative staff (such as persons
coordinating academic-vocational integration or evaluation). Though the
activities are consistent with the purposes of the Act, where these staff provide
assistance or these services are used may have little to do with within-district
concentrations of special needs students.

When districts in the case studies target resources to schools with special
populations, they generally do so on the basis of absolute numbers, not
proportions of special needs students. Because of the ways data are maintained,
counting mechanisms vary, but one common approach is to add together the

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds

© GEST COPY AMAMLABLE



Volume V

Table 2.9
Percent of States Taking Actions to Implement “All Aspects of the Industry” at
Secondary and Postsecondary Levels, 1991-92 and 1992-93

Action Taken, 1991-92 | Action Taken, 1992-93
Post- Post-
State Action Secondary | secondary | Secondary | secondary
Adopt definition 18 6 39 29
Provide mandatory curriculum 14 13 14 10
frameworks
Provide recommended curriculum 25 15 55 41
frameworks
Issue guidelines for local plans 25 _ 49 _
Provide inservice training for teachers 20 7 29 27
Provide inservice training for 14 4 27 22
counselors

Sources: 1992 Omnibus and 1993 Followup Surveys of Secondary and Postsecondary State
Directors

FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN STATE ADMINISTRATION

State ability to administer federal vocational policy is, in part, a function of the
guidance provided to the states by federal authorities. For states to administrator
the Perkins Act effectively, there must be clear, consistent direction from the
federal level. This direction is provided through regulations and through review
and approval of state plans. It is also provided by responses to day-to-day
inquiries from states about how to interpret federal law and rules.

The results of the 1992 survey showed that state officials largely viewed federal
guidance as positive, but they reported some weaknesses in federal leadership
(Figure 2.1). The vast majority of secondary and postsecondary directors agreed
that the U.S. Department of Education provided adequate opportunity for input
into the development of, and were responsive to inquiries about, federal
regulations. However, with respect to approval of state plans (required in order
for states to obtain federal funding) and technical assistance on new initiatives in
the 1990 Act, the majority of directors at both secondary and postsecondary
levels did not view federal action as timely. To understand more about the
reasons for state concern, and how assistance might be improved, the National

| 40 The State Administration of the Perkins Act



Volume V

Table 2.10
School Districts’ Views of Changes in State Support for Local Activities, 1993

Percent Saying Percent Saying State
State Support Increased Support Did Not Change
Funded Funded
Regular/ | Directly/ | Northeast/] Regular/ | Directly/ | Northeast/
Vocational Not Southern | Vocational Not Southern
Activity Districts Funded j Districts@ | Districts Funded | Districts?
Development of 74/83 83/44 52/80 24/12 14/51 45/16
integrated
vocational /
academic
programs

Development of 62/75 70/35 41/75 35/23 27/59 55/22
“all aspects”
curricula

Development of 79/89 82/59 57/88 19/10 17/35 40/11
tech prep

Vocational 73/79 79/50 49/89 24/17 18/45 44/9
program
assessment /
accountability

Guidance on 70/70 77/59 54/85 26/26 21/38 42/14
procedures for
assuring equal
access

State leadership in} 64/59 73/45 47/84 24/21 12/47 37/9
general

NOTE: Percentages for “regular districts” and “all districts” are the same for all activities.
Percentages in rows do not add to 100 because percentages for districts indicating declines in
state support have been omitted.

4 Northeast region administers indicated smaller increases in state support than did
administrators in other regions; Southern district data are shown for illustrative purposes.

Source: 1993 Followup Survey of School Districts

44 5

a

The State Administration of the Perkins Act


Volume V

Table 3.5
States w’ : Statewide Human Resource Councils, Other Supercouncil, or
Super Agency for Coordinating Education and Training Programs

Secondary Postsecondary
State Agencies State Agencies
Year Percentage | Number | Percentage |} Number
1992 — Has SHRIC, other 24 13 19 9
supercouncil, or super
agency
1993 — Has super agency 43 22 30 15
of some kind

Sources: Omnibus and Followup Surveys of Secondary and Postsecondary State Agencies

Department of Labor, the National Governors’ Association, and the National
Alliance of Business (see Appendix Table A-3.6). These sources found that about
20 state agencies embody some of the elements of SHRICs and have similar
functions and goals but do not meet the legal definitions. Fourteen states
reported to DOL that they had decided not to create a supercouncil, while 25
were still undecided.

Supercouncil Activities. The supercouncils have assumed a wide range of tasks.
Alt identified several common supercouncil responsibilities and a number of

specific actions particular states have taken in regards to each responsibility.”
For example:

Strategic statewide planning and reviewing plans of state and local job training/
education programs

Statewide coordinated planning has often been inadequate or even nonexistent.
Most supercouncils first try to reach consensus on broad goals, outline the goals
in writing, specify objectives or action strategies, and assign tasks to staff or
departments. MPR Associates found that every state council it contacted had
produced at least one report outlining the supercouncil’s goals and objectives.

Oregon, which has developed a comprehensive set of goals covering quality-of-
life issues as well as economic ones over the last several years, has taken strategic
planning seriously. The state goals, called Benchmarks, express both long-term

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs 8 4 73



Volume V

Table A-3.17
Customized Training Provided by Postsecondary Institutions

Percent of all institutions that provide 81
customized training for specific firms

Mean number of students receiving customized 606
training in Fall 1991-928

Percent of institutions providing customized 23
training that normally include JTPA and JOBS

clients

Mean number of JTPA clients included in 105
customized training?

Mean number of JOBS clients included in 41
customized training>

Included only institutions that reported at least one student in customized training provided by
the institution in fall 1991-92.

4 Includes only institutions that reported at Jeast one JTPA/JOBS student in customized training
provided by the institution in fall 1991-92.

Source: Omnibus Survey of Postsecondary Institutions

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs A-35



Volume V

Table A-3.10

Enrollment of JTPA Programs in
Comprehensive and Vocational Districts

Regular Vocational
Districts Districts

Percent of all districts reporting students 53 n
funded by JTPA .
Mean number of students in JTPA districts a 64
receiving services funded by JTPA@
Mean percent of district enrollment in JTPA

: b 38 58
districts

4 Includes only districts reporting at least one student who received services funded by JTPA.
during 1991-92 enrolled in the district.

© Includes only districts that reported at least one JTPA student during 1991-92 and provided all
data needed to calculate total enrollment.

Sources: Omnibus Surveys of Regular Districts, Version A, and Vocational Districts

dig

A-28 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs


Volume V

Table 1.2
Percent of School Districts in Each Region With Perkins Title II-C Funds
Participating in Consortia, FY93

Region Percent in Consortia?
Northeast 49
Central 82
South 44
West 42

4 In this survey, the percentage of all districts in consortia is slightly lower than the percentage
shown in state financial records data. This should not affect the magnitude of regional
differences, however.

Source: 1993 Followup Survey of School Districts

the decline in the number of grantees, 87 percent of eligible postsecondary
institutions continued to participate in the Perkins basic grant program,
including almost all community colleges (93 percent). It would appear that most
of the decline in participation occurred among schools with fewer than 2,000
students and among vocational-technical institutes (Table 1.3). The vocational-
technical institutes report a FY93 Perkins participation rate of 79 percent and
schools with fewer than 2,000 students show a participation rate of 77 percent.!!

Targeting Funds on Disadvantaged Students

The implementation of the 1990 Act also led to greater concentration of federal
resources in districts and postsecondary institutions with disadvantaged
students, although Perkins funds were already somewhat targeted to such
recipients. As shown in the Interim Report, students in districts with the highest
per-student Chapter 1 allocations also received the highest per-student Title II-C
Perkins allocations, and their percentage of Perkins funds increased under the
new legislation. In FY91, the final year of the 1984 legislation, the quartile of
students in school districts with the highest Chapter 1 allocations received 33.4
percent of Perkins funds; in the first year of the new Act that percentage
increased to 37.4. !2 In other words, students in these districts received about 40
percent more funds per student than they would have received were awards
based solely on numbers of students. Nonetheless, their percentage of Perkins
funds remained smaller than their percentage of Chapter 1 funds (42.8%) because
Chapter 1 allocations account for only 70 percent of the Perkins formula. At the

6 1 ” Allocation aud Uses of Perkins Funds


Volume V

Table A-3.12
Use of Sole or Joint Methods
to Plan JTPA Services and Select Students

(Percent)
Regular Districts Vocational Districts

How Services or Programs Were Planned

By school administrators 8 11

By JPTA administrators 20 16

Jointly by JPTA administrators and school 69 69

administrators

Other method 3 4
How Students Were Selected

By school administrators 8 2

By JPTA administrators 24 30

Jointly by jPTA administrators and school 64 60

administrators.

Other method 4 9

Sources: Omnibus Surveys of Regular Districts, Version A, and Vocational Districts

142

A-30 Coordinating Vocational Education ond Federal Job-Training Programs


Volume V

ENDNOTES

re)

6

10

US. Department of Education (1994), National Assessment of Vocational Education: Interim
Report to Congress, Chapter 3. Comparable changes were not identified at the postsecondary
level.

This figure (average federal dollars per professional emplovee) cannot be multiplied by the
24.1 average number of employees to derive the average state allocation to secondary
recipients. This is because the number of states from which average dollars per employee
were determined is considerably smaller than the number of states for which secondary
level allocation data are available, and some of the states with the smailest allocations to
secondary education are not included in the staff data. The actual average state allocation
to secondary education was $9,323,726 in 1993.

The declines were 5% and 36%.

For more detailed information on this issue, see the Interim Report, Chapter 2. Awards to
consortia may systematically require more (or less) state staff time than awards to
individual districts, but we do not have any information on this issue.

These data are for the 43 states for which complete data are available in both 1990 and 1993.

Such overall staff cuts and/or reorganizations may also explain some of the increase in
nonvocational staff shown in Table 2.1. it may be that these apparent increases in overail
staff actually represent consolidations of staff from multiple divisions within an agency.

An analysis of federal funds in relation to staff at the postsecondary level would show a
much larger number of federal dollars per professional staff member than at the secondary
level, however.

These findings update and are similar to those reported in the Interim Report, which wes
based on change between 1990 and 1992.

An additional analysis used the three groups to look at whether states with declines in staff
were less (or more) likely to make their secondary vocational performance systems
applicable to all programs or only to those receiv ing federal support. There does not appear
to be any relationship between staff declines /increases and that choice, suggesting that
staff declines did not lead states to narrow the purview of at least part of the Perkins Act
when the opportunity was presented in the federal regulations.

These include federal initiatives under the State Postsecondary Review Entities and the
Student Right to Know Act, both of which call upon states to examine the outcomes of
postsecondary vocational programs.

Comparable questions on state roles were not asked of administrators of postsecondary
institutions.

1992 data are shown in the National Assessment Interim Report, Chapter 3, Table 3.5.

At least in the area of performance systems, we have seen that the states were focused on.
system development (rather than implementation) until 1992-92,

48

59 The State Administration of the Perkins Act



Volume V

PREFACE

This is the fifth of five volumes in the Final Report of the National Assessment of
Vocational Education, mandated by Congress in the 1990 Perkins Act and
prepared in the Office of Research, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement (OERI). The Final Report substantially expands and updates the
Assessment's Interim Report, presented to Congress in January, 1994.

This volume contains three chapters, a technical appendix, bibliography, and
other reference material. Each chapter has a principal author (or authors), but
may also incorporate the work and views of other researchers. The chapters and
their principal authors are as follows:

Chapter 1. Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds — Lana Muraskin
(SMB Economic Research)

Chapter 2. The State Administration of the Perkins Act —
Lana Muraskin (SMB Economic Research)

Chapter 3. Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-

Training Programs — Debra Hollinger, James Harvey (James Harvey
Associates)

Chapter 3 is new and has been rewritten since the advance version of this report
was delivered to Congress in late June, 1994. The other chapters, earlier versions
of which were included in the Interim Report, also contain new material,
including survey data collected in 1993.

Because of inconsistencies between Chapter 1 of this volume and Chapter 1 of
Volume IV in the advance version of the report, we have conducted additional
analyses of the uses of Perkins funds and included a discussion of these analyses
in the chapter on the allocation and uses of Perkins funds.

While conducted within OERI, this assessment is an independent study and does
not necessarily reflect the views of OERI or the U.S. Department of Education.

David Boesel
Director, National Assessment
of Vocational Education

fon)



had graduated in 1982, 1987, 1990, or 1992 and for whom complete transcripts
were available. This resulted in final sample sizes of 9,510 for the 1982 HSB;
24,426 for the 1987 NAEP; 16,456 for the 1990 NAEP; and 11,677 for the 1992
NELS.

Every effort was made to ensure that samples were comparably defined across
years. However, differences in the sampling and variables used in these studies
limit comparisons of certain student subgroups. For example, economically
disadvantaged students can be identified on the 1982 HSB.and 1992 NELS
transcript studies, but not in the 1987 or 1990 studies.

Classification of Courses*

Courses in all four transcript studies were coded using the classification of
secondary school course (CSSC) codes, which are based on course titles and
catalog descriptions. In each study, course files were linked to student
background information and, in the NAEP studies, to student assessment scores.

After conversion to CSSC codes, all transcript course records data were coded
using the Secondary School Taxonomy. This taxonomy consolidates individual
course titles into more general and comparable course categories. The taxonomy
was developed as part of the last National Assessment to facilitate the analysis of
the 1982 HSB transcript data; it has been used for numerous NCES studies and is
well accepted for research purposes.*

The Secondary School Taxonomy categorizes the secondary curriculum first into
three branches: academic, vocational, and personal/other. The academic
curriculum is then divided into six subject areas (mathematics, science, English,
social studies, fine arts, and foreign languages).

The vocational curriculum is divided into three curricular areas — consumer and
homemaking education, general labor market preparation, and specific labor
market preparation. Consumer and homemaking courses provide training and
skills that are often necessary for activities outside of the paid labor force (e.g.,
child development, family health, foods and nutrition). Classes that impart basic
skills that can be applied in a variety of personal or occupational settings are
categorized under general labor market preparation. These courses include
beginning typing, industrial arts, work experience and career exploration,
business math, and business English. Specific labor market preparation includes
introductory, advanced, and elective courses in seven occupationally related
vocational areas: agriculture, business, marketing and distribution, health,
occupational home economics, trade and industry, and technical and
communications.

The personal /other curriculum is further divided into four categories: general
skills, health (nonvocational), religion, and military science. General skills
include courses such as physical education and driver education.

T-32 L836 Technical Appendix


Carnevale, A.P., Gainer, L.J., & Meltzer, A.S. (1988). Workplace Basics: The Skills Employers Want.
Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

Casner-Lotto, J. (1988). Successful Training Strategies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Catterall, J.S., & Stern, D. (1986). The etfects of alternative school programs on high school
completion and labor market outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 8(1),

77-86.

Center for Occupational Research and Development (1993). Report on the Attainment of Algebra 1
Skills by Completers of Applied Mathematics Land 2. Waco, TX: Author.

Chance, W. (1988). The Best of Educations. Denver: Education Commission of the States.

Chaney, B. (1994). 1993 Follozeup Surveys, National Assessment of Vocational Education Programs,
Surtey Repart. Rockville, MD: Westat.

Choy, S., Alt, M., & Henke, R. (1993). Profile of the Target Populations for School-to-Werk Transition
Initiatives. Paper prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, Oftice of Educational
Research and Improvement.

Coffey, O.D. (1992). Special considerations in a: ing vocational education in corrections. In
Papers Presented at the Design Conference for the National Assessment for Vocational Education.
Washingion, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Research.

Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives 8). The Vocational Education
Ancndments of 1968 (Report No. 1647). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives (1976). The Vocaticnal Education
and National Institute of Education Aueudments of 1976 (Report No. 94-1085). Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office.

Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives (1984). The Vocational-Technical
Education Amendments of 1984 (Report No. 98-612). Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.

Conklin, D. (1987). Corporation-Comuumity College Partnerships: High Technology Apprenticeship
Training. Paper presented at the annua! meeting of the American Association of
Community and Junior Colleges, Dallas.

Conroy, W.G., & Diamond, D.E. (1976). The Impact of Secondary School Occupational Education in
Massacluisetts. Lowell, MA: University of Lowell, College of Management Science. (ED
122095).

Coombs, J., & Cooley, W.W. (1968). Dropouts: In high school and after school, American
Edneational Research Journal, 5, 343-363.

Corson, W., & Sierberg, M. (1993). The School-to-Work Trausition/Youth Apprenticeship
Demousffation: Preliminary Findings. Princeton, NJ: Matematica Policy Research.

Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation (1994). The Directory of Professional aint
Occupational Regulation in the Uniled States and Canada. Lexington, KY: Author.

National Assessment of Vocational Eateation: Final Repopb to Congress RS
be


The level of employers’ vocational education involvement varies by industry and
size of establishment. For example, analysis of the High School and Beyond
(HSB) and National Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS) data sets indicates
that vocational education involvement is relatively high in manufacturing
industries such as food pre ducts, textiles/leather products, and transportation
equipment, and in certain .conmanufacturing industries such as wholesale trade
of durable goods, auto repair, and personal/health services. On the other hand,
business services, educational services, and membership organizations (among
others) tend to have very little involvement with vocational education. Therefore,
three groups of establishments representing different levels of vocational
education involvement were developed for sample selection purposes. The three
industry groupings covered high and low vocational involvement plus a
medium level that includes agriculture, construction, printing, wholesale trade of
nondurable goods, hotels and lodging, eating and drinking places, finance anci
real estate, legal and social services, and similar employers.

In each of the three industry groups, establishments were stratified by eight size
classes, producing a total of 24 sampling cells. The following types of
establishments were excluded from the sampling frame: those with fewer than
ten employees, establishments in public administration, educational services,
membership organizations, private household employers, and those not
classifiable. Table T.10 summarizes the population counts in the restricted DMI
universe file for sampling.

Table T.10 -
DMI Population Counts of Fligible Establishments for Employer Survey,
by Size Class and Vocational Education Involvement

Vocational Education Involvement

DMI Employment High Medium Low Total
Size Class

Size unknown 75,050 230,568 64,135 369,753
10 to 19 148,826 516,557 105,857 771,240
20 to 49 87,773 287,773 57,958 433,504
50 to 99 35,926 93,949 19,398 149,309
100 to 249 25,717 45,462 15,183 86,362
250 to 499 6A21 12,333 4,268 23,022
500 to 999 2,975 5,066 1,473 9,514
1,000 + 2,685 3,076 756 6,517
Total 1,194,784 269,028 1,849,221

Source: 1992 Dun & Bradstreet DUNS Market Identifiers (DMI) file

Technical Appendix i T-21

~~}
Ci


Volume V

. Service providers may not inform clients about other programs that
would be useful to them.

Ina review for the National Assessment, Alt discovered that lack of information-
sharing especially lowers the effectiveness of job training programs:22 Some
prospective clients are discouraged by the amount of time required simply to
gather basic information about their options; job listings are scattered and
disorganized; agency staff are unable to track clients’ progress or evaluate the
effectiveness of programs outside their own areas of responsibility.

Summary

In sum, analysts believe that, despite the potential for overlap, duplication of
services to specific clients is not a major problem at the local level, although some
redundancy exists in areas such as equipment and facilities, assessment and
placement services, and administrative costs. There appears to be no hard
.evidence of wasteful competition at the local level. Nonetheless, policymakers
continue to stress potential problems inherent in a highly fragmented job-
training system, and National Assessment reviews indicate that both clients and
local agency staff experience considerable difficulty working within this complex
system. We found no evidence of any major effort at the federal level to simplify
client eligibility, accounting procedures, or other regulations that local
administrators perceive as burdensome.

RECENT FEDERAL EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE COORDINATION

To deal with these problems, recent federal legislation has included provisions to
encourage , even require, coordination at the federal, state, and local levels. At
the federal level, two approaches stand out: provisions requiring mandatory
coordination and the “set-aside” of funds under JTPA specifically for agency
cooperation.

Mandatory Coordination Provisions

The recent Perkins amendments include several coordination provisions related
to federal agencies:

. A requirement to form an Interdepartmental Task Force on
Vocational Education and Related Programs (Task Force). The law
specifies that the Task Force consist of the Secretary of Education,
the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services. The Task Force’s mandate is to:

(1) examine principal data required for the programs under the
Adult Education Act, the Perkins Act, the JTPA, the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, and the Wagner-Peyser Act;

aa
fas)

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs 65



Volume V

Table 1.7
Individually-Funded Districts’ Uses of Perkins Funds, by District Special
Population Quartiles (Percent of Districts)

Quartile
Med- | Med-
Use Category Low | Low | High | High
Staff development to support integration 64 59 55 85
Other staff development activities 67 36 62 63
Other staff efforts to support integration 66 51 61 76
Purchase occupationally-relevant equipment 71 82 76 89
Purchase vocational curriculum materials 75 69 80 88
Purchase material for learning labs 79 56 68 90
Curriculum development or modification 79 56 68 90
Support services for special population students 56 52 63 71
Career counseling /guidance activities 69 63 63 72
Develop/expand tech-prep programs 49 36 48 70
Develop “all aspects” curriculum 34 17 28 41
Adapt equipment for disabled students 19 28 32 40
Remedial courses : 23 26 34 32
Special populations coordinator 24 20 36 25
Hiring other vocational staff 36 31 49 51
Establish/expand industry-education partnerships 47 19 36 41
Develop/expand vocational performance assessment | 31 26 52 37
Create /expand vocational course sequences 40 41 40 65
Apprenticeship programs 5 8 8 8
Program part of state/local economic development 29 29 20 36
Purchase services from other providers 38 21 19 41
Upgrade teacher competencies at institutions of 57 26 24 34
higher education
Source: 1993 Followup Survey of School Districts
20 Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds



Volume V

These explanations do not address the fact that JTPA also serves some out-of-
school youth and does enroll some of its clients in longei-term associate degree
programs; however, the bulk of the argument stands.

An earlier NCRVE analysis of case studies in seven states concluded that many
complaints about duplication were actually “turf battles” or efforts of one
program to demonstrate its own effectiveness by comparison with the
wastefulness of another.'8 NCRVE found that “specific cases of alleged
duplication usually proved to be two programs that served different groups of
individuals, or provided somewhat different services, or were programs that had
gone out of existence”.!9

Grubb and associates did find some instances of duplication, however:

Equipment and facilities. For example, a JTPA program may purchase
word processing or welding equipment for its program even though a
nearby educational institution already has similar equipment that may not
be used to its full capacity.

Assessment. A client may be referred to different organizations, each of
which does its own assessment (e.g., a client may be assessed by an SDA
upon recruitment, then by a community-based organization for a job
readiness program, and then again by a community college for basic skills
training).

Placement services. A firm may be routinely contacted by a number of
different organizations in the same community concerning job vacancies.

Administration. Each program has a number of layers, each with its own
administrative staff and costs (e.g., JTPA SDAs typically contract with
community-based organizations, community colleges, adult schools, and
so on, each of which has its own administrative unit).

Such duplication is often difficult to correct. In the case of duplicative equipment,
for example, there may be problems in scheduling classes to meet both programs’
needs. In the case of administrative costs, there may also be costs associated with
coordination. Grubb and McDonnell” even go so far as to assert that some
duplication may be constructive:

Under the right circumstances, such redundancy . . . can also make the
overall policy system more flexible and able to generate new
alternatives. The challenge is to create conditions that facilitate the
beneficial effects of redundancy and avoid its inefficient aspects.

r=

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs 63



Table T.1
Content of the National Assessment of Vocational Education
Omnibus Survey

SD | PD | DA| DB { DV |} SS | PS

Administrative responsibilities /
institution type

~<
~
Pad
x
x
Pad
<

Enrollments x x x x Xx x x
Staffing xX{xX}]xX]x {xix tx
General funding X 1X ]xX |X] xXx x
Distribution or use of Perkins funds xX |X |X }]_x]xXx x
Steps taken to integrate academic and xX |X X1X |X 4X

vocational education
Steps taken to implement “all aspects

x
~<
x
~
x
x

of the industry”
Steps taken to develop tech-prep x xX |X x
Steps taken to develop and implement | X | X xX | xX xX

vocational performance standards
and measures

School-to-work programs xX |X xX | X
Coordination with JTPA x x x x xX
Effects of education reform on xX xX |X

vocational education

Services for special population students Xx x x
— current and changes

SD = Survey of State Directors of Secondary Vocational Education
PD = Survey of State Directors of Postsecondary Occupational/Technical Education
DA = Survey of Public Secondary School Districts, Version A
DB = Survey of Public Secondary School Districts, Version B
DV = Survey of Vocational School Districts
SS = Survey of Public Secondary Schools
PS = Survey of Two-Year Public Postsecondary Institutions
ind

151

T-4

Technical Appendix


Volume V

The Perkins Act includes a number of coordination requirements related to
federal agencies, states, and local education agencies (LEAs). States must conduct
joint planning and coordination of their programs with those conducted under
the JTPA, the Adult Education Act, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and with apprenticeship programs. The 1990 Perkins
Amendments require that each State Council on Vocational Education include
representatives from business and industry, labor, and vocational schools and
programs, as well as experts on special education or the needs of selected target
populations, to oversee and report on the state’s coordination efforts. SCOVEs
must independently evaluate the state’s effectiveness in coordinating its
vocational education system with its job-training system, and recommend actions
to the State Board for Vocational Education to improve vocational education in
the state.

These requirements are almost entirely procedural. They mandate that programs
conduct joint planning by consulting with one another on how to avoid
duplication or refer individuals among programs. However, a 1990 survey of
welfare services agency directors found that joint meetings of advisory councils
was the coordination method thought the least likely to be effective.!° The joint
delivery of service, however, goes beyond conferring and consulting. Agencies
can subcontract with one another to provide services and can actually develop
new ways of delivering education and training services.

JTPA requires that governors issue criteria for coordination to every SDA in the
State. A State Job Training Coordination Council is responsible for overseeing
and reporting on the state’s coordination efforts. Before SDAs can receive JTPA
resources, they must submit a Job Training Plan that discusses how they will
meet the governor’s coordination criteria. The plan must describe measures taken
by the state to ensure coordination and avoid duplication between state agencies

administering the JOBS program and those administering the programs under
Title II of JTPA.

JTPA sets aside 8 percent of a state’s Title II-A allocation to fund coordination of
vocational education and job training. McDonnell & Zellman!! found that 80
percent of the states have placed priority for use of the 8 percent set-aside on
coordination between JTPA and vocational education.

The Adult Education Act requires that the state plan for adult education be
reviewed by the JTPA State Job Training Coordinating Council and by the state-
level boards or agencies responsible for vocational and postsecondary education.
In addition, local providers must coordinate with agencies offering similar
services to the same adult population under JTPA and JOBS.

The National Apprenticeship Act does not specifically address coordination
with vocational education. However, the Departments of Education and Labor

56 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs

67



Volume V

Figure 1.1 (continued)
Perkins Title I1I-C Allocation Decisions and Expenditures in
Eight School Districts

School District
Characteristics

Methods for Within-District
I-C Allocation

FY93 II-C Grant Sizes and
Expenditures

Large district with
suburban towns, 29,000
students in 9-12, heavily
minority, 29% qualify for
free/reduced price lunch;
20 comprehensive high
schools (5 with extensive
vocational education), 2
alternative high schools, 5
special education schools

More than half of funds are
allocated to high schools with the
highest absolute numbers of
disadvantaged students (not
proportions) vased on duplicated
counts (all special population
characteristics count equally). In
FY92, 5 schools received funds;
FY93, 6 schools were added.
Teams at the schools decide on
uses of funds and received grants
ranging from $16,000 to $81,000 in
FY93 based on a district formula.
‘The rest of the funds support
district vocational staff and
various guidance services (for
accounting purposes, these are
“allocated” across the schools
with Perkins funds).

$941,486

1) 11 schools received grants ranging from
$16,000 to $81,000. Bulk of funds have been
used for purchases of hardware and
software for vocational assessment and
academic remediation. Also funds for
technical assistants in career and
remediation labs, joint curriculum
development among academic and
vocational teachers, inservice in guidance.
2) Small grants to 2 alternative high
schools for su port services
3) $55,000 to develop learning styles
assessment for 7th grade students district
wide.

4) District-wide ser including 3
central office vocational staff, 1 vocational
support person ina school, child
development aides and other services in
alternative schools, additional $41,000 for
administration.

Small, rural district, 1,650
students in 9-12, 2 high
schools, growing
population, few
minorities, median
income high for state.

All funds are allocated to the high
school with the highest absolute
number of special population
students (the other high school
appeared to have a higher
proportion).

$48,000

1) $46,000 to establish a second career
counseling, position at one high school
(aimed at Special population students
without respect to enrollment in vocational
education).

2) $2,000 for inservice training.

Medium sized urban
district, 11,243 stuclents in
9-12, 60% qualify for free
lunch, 9"% special
education, large
percentage are minority; 6
comprehensive, 3 magnet,
2alternative, and |

special ed high school;
district also feeds to
county area school,

District shifts about half of
resources across 2 technical and 4
other comprehensive high schools
— as one school completes
purchases (vocational equipment,
career guidance hard /software)
funds move to other schools;
other half of resources are
personnel shown as district-wide
services, not funds allocated to
individual schools — but in fact
the funds support one position at
each comprehensive high school

$980,286

1) Curriculum and equipment purchases
for career guidance, special ed career
education.

2) 6 career counselors with necessary:
equipment and supplies. °

(continued)

Allocation and Us

's of Perl

ns Fuad



Volume V

Table 2.1
Number of State Administrators of Secondary Vocational Education,
1990 and 1993

Employee Data 1990 1993

Average number of employees in state agency /division 57.5 75.1
where administration of vocational programs is located

Average number of employees in state agency /division 28.6 24.1
administering secondary vocational education

Median number of employees in state agency /division 25 19.5

administering secondary vocational education

NOTE: Data from 42 states.

Sources: 1992 Omnibus Survey of Secondary State Directors; 1993 Followup Survey of Secondary
State Directors

education declined from 25 persons in 1990 to 19.5 persons in 1993. Furthermore,
these declines occurred at the same time that the average number of overall staff
in the same agencies or divisions increased.

To see whether secondary-level state staffing levels are adequate to carry out
necessary, administrative and leadership activities, we identified two indirect
indicators of workload that might show relationships with staff size. First, we
observed 1993 staffing levels in relation to federal dollars allocated to secondary
education in each state. Second, we observed 1993 staffing levels in each state in
relation to the number of secondary-level Perkins grant awards made by that
state.

With respect to federal funds, we found that states vary considerably if Perkins
dollars per professional staff member at the secondary level (Table 2.2). In 1993,
the national average was $694,571 in Perkins grant funds allocated to secondary
recipients per employee engaged in secondary vocational administration.? The
median amount was only $343,363 per employee, however. The substantial
difference between mean and median occurs because a relatively small number
of states have very large fund-to-staff ratios (which raises the mean), while a
substantial number of states spend much smaller amounts per staff member at
the secondary level (less' than $400,000).

Changes in staffing appear to play a role in increasing the federal dollars
allocated per staff member. lf we observe separately those states with high and

30 The State Administration of the Perkins Act



for regular public secondary school districts, and 93 percent for vocational school
districts, The Followup response rates were higher than the earlier Omnibus
Survey rates for several reasons. Mot only were the respondents more familiar
with the surveys, but the Followup Surveys were much shorter and required less
reporting of hard data, such as enrollment numbers, so they were easier for the
respondents to complete. Only four (1.4%) of the postsecondary institutions
refused to participate, with another ten (3.6%) unable to comply by the end of the
data collection period. The refusal rate for the regular and vocational secondary
districts was about the same (1.5%), and 54 (6.1%) did not complete the survey
before data collection was terminated.

Weighting

Because the two state surveys were census surveys, no weighting was
performed. The sampling weights for regular and vocational districts, and for
postsecondary institutions were the reciprocals of their overall selection
probabilities.

The basic sampling weights for regular and vocational districts were adjusted for
nonresponse by dividing the two types of districts into separate classes, based on
the level of urbanization (rural, suburban, urban), region, and district size class,
and multiplying the basic sampling weights by the ratio of the aggregate district
weight to the aggregate district weight for the responding districts. Adjusted
weights for nonresponse for postsecondary institutions were derived in a similar
manner, after dividing postsecondary institutions into separate classes based on
region, institution status, and institution size class.

Reliability of Survey Estimates

Nonresponse on individual items within a given questionnaire can also result in
bias in the survey estimates. Generally, because of the simplified questionnaires
used in the Followup Survey, and the use of telephone interviewers to collect the

data, item nonresponse was low and does not seriously affect the reliability of the
estimates.

Jackknife replication was used to generate standard error estimates. Replicate
weights were calculated for the regular districts, vocational districts, and
postsecondary institutions. (Jackknife replication is discussed above, in the
Omnibus Survey section.)

As was true for the Omnibus Survey data, budget and time constraints prevented
the estimation of jackknife standard errors for all point estimates used in this
report. Instead, estimates of statistical significance were approximated, based on
the standard errors shown in Tables T-7 through T-9.

Further information on the Followup Survey is available in Chaney (1994).

Technical Appendix TAS


Volume V

OVERLAP AND COORDINATION

Programs for employment and vocational training have multiplied in the United
States for more than 60 years, and the opportunity for duplication and
fragmentation of service delivery has increased along with them. In July 1992, the
General Accounting Office reported to the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and
Human Resources that:

. In fiscal year 1991, there were 125 federal education and
employment training programs for adults and out-of-school youth.

. These programs were administered by 14 different federal
departments and agencies.

° Many of the programs provided similar services to the same target
populations. For example, GAO identified 40 programs that
provided counseling and assessment to the economically
disadvantaged and 34 programs that provided remedial or basic
skills training to this same target group.

GAO concluded that “[t]his myriad of programs creates the potential for
overlapping services and confusion on the part of local service providers and
individuals seeking assistance. Although multiple programs are an
acknowledged problem, many barriers exist to effective program coordination or
the integration of program services, such as varying target group definitions,
differing administrative rules, and competition between programs.”* The overlap
of services and target groups is shown in Table 3.1.

Congress has attempted to address this issue by including provisions for
coordination in legislation authorizing the major employment preparation
programs. In authorizing the National Assessment of Vocational Education,
Congress directed that it consider the issue of coordination of Perkins programs
with other federal employment training programs, including the Adult
Education Act, the Job Training Partnership Act, the National Apprenticeship
Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Wagner-Peyser Act.

OVERVIEW OF PROGRAMS

The major federal employment and vocational training programs all are intended
to improve the American workforce. The purposes, eligibility requirements, and
essential elements of each of these major programs are summarized in Appendix
Table A-3.1.

50 Coordinating Gog tional Education and Federal fob-Training Programs


Volume V

the rules. These findings are not surprising, however, given that the average
consortium includes over seven school districts and its Perkins I-C grant is
larger than the average grant to an individual district. Further, in the Followup
Survey, districts in consortia are almost as likely to report that they target basic
grant funds to specific schools or programs as are districts as a whole. 18

THE USES OF FEDERAL FUNDS

The 1990 Act offers more direction on within-district funds allocation but also
seeks to provide greater local flexibility in the use of funds. Once they arrive at
districts (and schools or programs), federal funds may be used for virtually any
activity, so long as the activity provides equitable participation to special
populations. Previous legislation had detailed rules for which students could
receive suppott (set-asides for students with disabilities, disadvantaged students,
adults in need of retraining) and what the funds could buy (funds under the set-
asides for disadvantaged students or students with disabilities could only be
used to pay for half of the greater or excess costs of providing services to
students who met the definitions). The new legislation allows the funds to be
spent for any purpose or student so long as the larger goal is te enhance
vocational education in the school or program. This latitude is designed to
increase local discretion and enable federal funds to be used for school-wide or
program-wide vocational reform.

This new intent to provide flexibility in spending resources was, to a degree,
overshadowed by a debate over support services. Much like the previous
legislation, the 1990 Act included service requirements for special populations
that complicated efforts to draw a distinction between fund allocation rules and
the uses of federal resources. The legislation required recipients of funds to
assure that they were providing various special populations with support
services to enable them to succeed in vocational education. Under the 1984
legislation, states and recipients viewed the set-aside funds as the resources
available to provide those services.

The 1990 Act did not clarify the relationship between the support service
requirements and federal funds. In fact, it extended the service requirements to
postsecondary institutions as well as school districts. Further, in eliminating the
set-asides, the legislation appeared to remove what many state and local officials
had viewed as unofficial limits on their financial responsibility to provide
support services. The new legislation appeared to open the door to use of all
basic grant funds for special services. The debate now centered on whether
school districts were obligated to provide such services even when federal funds
were exhausted, with the original regulations holding that they were not.

16 Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds



TECHNICAL APPENDIX

ba
ws
a)

Technical Appendix



Volume V

. An estimated 5,700 districts (58% of the regular districts in the
Omnibus Survey) reported that their students received services
funded by JTPA auring 1991-92.

. In districts with JTPA services, the mean number of JTPA students
served was 41, which represented 3.8 percent of total enrollment,
and 13 percent of the vocational education enrollment (see
Appendix Table A-3.10).

JTPA Services. The services JTPA offers in secondary school districts indicate
how students in traditional educational institutions may benefit when
coordination occurs. Summer employment is the most common JTPA service (see
Appendix Table A-3.11), provided by 84 percent of the districts with JTPA
services. Work experience was provided in 44 percent of these districts, and
counseling and remediation were each provided in about one-third of the
districts.

Program Planning. In general, JTPA and vocational education work tugether in
planning JTPA services and in selecting students to receive them:

. Joint planning was reported in more than two-thirds (69 percent) of
the regular school districts.

. Almost as many (64 percent) districts responded that joint selection
of students is used. (See Appendix Table A-3.12)

Funding. The Omnibus Survey data on funding patterns suggests that although
the amount of JTPA funding received by the average regular secondary district
(including any 8% set-aside funds) seems small at first glance, it is fairly
substantial when put into perspective (Table 3.6):

° The average for all regular school districts, including those that do
not receive any JTPA funds, is approximately $20,000.

° The average amount among school districts that actually receive
JTPA funds, however, is more than $100,000, and represents about
1 percent of the district's total revenues.

. In school districts that receive both JTPA and Perkins funds, the
JTPA funds are equal to about two-thirds of the Perkins funds
(more than $150,000).

Coordination with JTPA substantially benefits regular secondary school districts.
However, only one-fifth of these districts with JTPA programs spent any of their
own funds on them. According to Bailis and Grubb,TM this finding “confirms
evidence from elsewhere*> that programs within secondary schools are initiated

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training progidith 83


The first survey mailing was completed during the last week of January 1993.
The first and second followup mailings and mailgrams as a final followup were
sent in the end’of February, the end of March, and mid-April, respectively.

Survey Response Rates

A total of 2,000 surveys were mailed to secondary chapters, and 1,282 to
postsecondary chapters. The percentages of usable forms received from all
eligible chapters were 74 percent for the secondary and 70 percent for the
postsecondary levels.

Sample Weights and Standard Errors of Estimates

Two sets of weights were constructed to correct for the sample design. One set of
weights, based on the proportion of chapters in a VSO that returned completed
surveys, was applied to all data dealing with VSO chapter characteristics, such as
funding sources and levels, services provided, and benefits to members of
chapters across VSOs. Another set of weights, based on the proportion of student
members represented by respondent chapters, was applied to all analyses
dealing with student enrollment counts (in VSO chapters, vocational education
programs, and host schools).

Sample weights were calculated for all VSO chapters, including the four
postsecondary VSOs from which all chapters were surveyed; the latter were
included because response rates for these chapters were below 80 percent.

Because the sample design was relatively simple, relying primarily on systematic
sampling within stratification groups, standard errors were not adjusted beyond
the use of weighted data to calculate these estimates.

School Minority Categories

Our assessment of minority VSO participation included an examination of
participation rates among schools serving different concentrations of minority
students. For these analyses, we calculated the percentage of students in each
responding school who are non-white (i.e., we subtracted the percentage of
students who are white from 100). Due to missing data on schools’ ethnic
breakdowns, this calculation reduced the size of the analysis sample by nearly 50
percent. The remaining schools were then classified into low, medium and high
minority categories, as follows: (1) low minority if fewer than 10% of students are
non-white (includes 38% of secondary schools and 39'% of postsecondary
schools); (2) medium minority if 10-25% of students are non-white (includes 33%
of secondary and 31% of postsecondary schools); and (3) high minority if more
than 25'% of students are non-white (includes 28% of secondary and 30% of
postsecondary schools).

T-30 184 Technical Appendix



Volume V

Table 2.6
Percent of State Secondary Vocational Directors Reporting Increases in Time
Devoted to Various Activities in Relation to Changes in State Staff, 1990-1993

Change in State Staff, 1990-93
Decline of | Decline
50% or | Less Than
Greater 50% Increase
Activity or Responsibility (N=15) (N=13) (N=13)
Development of student performance measures 86.7 92.3 84.6
Coordination of vocational education with other 60.0 92.3 92.3
education programs
Responsibilities concerning business/labor 46.7 46.2 69.2
partnerships
Responsibilities concerning special populations 60.0 53.8 615
Training /technical assistance to localities 40.0 61.5 53.8
Distribution /monitoring of federal /state funds 53.3 61.5 46.2
(including audits)

Source: 1993 Followup Survey of Secondary State Directors

of several federal initiatives in standards development for postsecondary
occupational programs. Other federal policies aimed at performance evaluation
of postsecondary occupational programs may also affect the findings shown
here. 1

As we saw in Volume II, Chapter 2, states devoted considerable time and
resources to the development of performance assessment systems in the first
years of Perkins implementation. Secondary and postsecondary officials in the
vast majority of states indicate that the steps necessary to select measures and set
standards have been taken, and that the resulting performance system is
beginning to be used. Table 2.8 highlights activities associated with performance
assessment and shows a shift over time from development activities (the top of
the table) to system implementation and use of results (the bottom of the table).
Ninety percent of the secondary state directors indicate that they completed the
process of establishing performance standards by 1992-93. At the same time,
however, only 39 percent of those directors report that they have evaluated
vocational programs using the standards, with 55 percent now in the process of
conducting such evaluations,

The State Administration of the Perkins Act 4 8 37


Volume V

° Roughly one-half of the postsecondary state directors reported
regular meetings and joint membership on committees with all of
the programs itemized in the survey.

° Between 19 and 40 percent of the state agencies reported joint
funding with other programs, the least common form of
interaction.

Other, possibly more substantive activities are common, but far from universal.
About one-third of the state agencies reported that they did not have any formal
or informal arrangements for coordination other than the meeting, planning, and
joint funding arrangements discussed above (see Appendix Table A-3.8).

Funding Policies. State funding policies influence coordination between
vocational education and job-training programs. In many states, the state
funding of community colleges is a function of enrollment — the more students
enrolled, the higher the funding. This means that community colleges in these
states have a powerful incentive to cooperate with JTPA because, in addition to
any funds they receive from the sponsoring program, they receive additional
revenue for each JTPA or JOBS client they enroll. The same may apply to
technical institutes and area vocational schools, as the majority of states confirm:

° Seventy-eight percent reported that JTPA clients qualify for regular
state aid.
° Eighty-one percent reported that JOBS clients qualify for regular

state aid.

Traditional postsecondary program offerings, calendars, and class schedules
often do not meet the needs of JTPA and JOBS clients. For example, most
postsecondary institutions do not routinely offer support services such as day
care and open-entry/open-exit programs. Community colleges and technical
institutes that have flexible programs and schedules, remediation, and other
support services can more readily work with federal job-training programs.

Most postsecondary state agencies do fund or otherwise encourage flexible
programs including short courses, open-entry /open-exit courses, and other
nontraditional formats. The proportion of state agencies reporting that they use
these policies to encourage cooperation increased from 1992 to 1993. In 1993, 82
percent indicated that they encourage flexible programs, compared to 71 percent
in 1992. In 1992, 50 percent reported that the state funds assessment, remediation,
and counseling centers at postsecondary institutions; that proportion rose to 70
percent in 1993. (See Appendix Table A-3.9).

QQ
vs

Coordmating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs



Table T.13
Definitions for Special Population Students in Transcript Studies

1982 1987 1990 1992

Special Population Group HSB | NAEP | NAEP | NELS
Disabled students
Students who had an Individualized x Xx

Education Plan (IEP), as indicated in the
transcript files

Students who had enrolled in a special x
education program, as indicated in the
transcript files

Educationally disadvantaged students

Students in the lowest test quartile, based x x
on a composite math and reading test score
Students whose grade point average based X x x x
on transcript records was “C” or below
Students whose transcripts indicated they x xX x x

had earned credits in remedial education
cCOUrses:

Economically disadvantaged students

Students in the bottom quartile on a x Xx
composite measure constructed from
family income, mothers’ education, fathers’
education, fathers’ occupation, and (in
1982) a list of home items; in 1992, the list
was deleted and mothers’ occupation was
added

Limited English proficient students

Stu
profi

defined as limited English x
ent by their teachers in grade eight

NOTE: Transcript studies with no “X” in a special population category did not contain
comparable measures for defining that student group.

TM 188s Technical Appendix


Stern, D., Stone, J.R., Finkelstein, N., Latting, J., & Martinez, G. (1993). Schaal to Work Transition
and the Relevance of Vocational Education to Subsequent Employment -- Review of Research.
Washington, DC: Report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education.
Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Stern, D., Stone, J.R., Hopkins, C., McMillion, M., & Cagampang, H. (1992). Quality of work
experience as perceived by two-year college students in co-op and non-co-op jobs. journal
of Cooperative Education, 28(1), 34-47.

Stevens, D. (1993). The Sclwol-to- Work Transition of High School and Comnuimity College Vocational
and Non-Vocational Program Completers: 1990-1992. Draft report prepared for the National
Assessment of Vocational Education. Philadelphia: National Center on the Educational
Quality of the Workforce.

Swartz, J.P. (1989). State and Local Response to the Carl D. Perkins Act: Survey Analysis. Cambridge,
MA: Abt Associates.

Tao, F., & Richard, G.V. (1993). Survey of Vocational Student Organizations, Final Report, Vol. 1.

Draft report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Arlington,
VA: Fu Associates.

Taylor, J.M. (1993, January). Pell Grants for prisoners, The Nation, pp. 88-91.

Topel, R.H., & Ward, R. (1992). Job mobility and the careers of young men, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 107(2) 439-479.

Travits, M., Thomas, G., Pezold, S., Kay, P., Rees, L., Keel, K., Rice, C., & Harman, D. (1993). The
Equivalence of Applied Algebra. Cobb County, GA: Cobb County Public Schools.

Triest, R.K. (1994). Occupational Credentialing: A Review of the Empirical Evidence, Draft paper
prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education, University of California
at Davis.

Trutko, J., Bailis, L., Barnow, B. and French, S. (1991). Au Assessment of the {TPA Role in State and
Local Coordination Activities. Research and Evaluation Report Services 91-d. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

Tuma, J. (1993). Patterns of Enrollinent in Postsecondary Vocational aud Academic Education. Draft
report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Berkeley, CA:
MPR Associates.

Cc
7A)

S. Bureau of the Consus (1989). Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1989, Washington, DC:
US. Department of Commerce.

USS. Bureau of the Census (1990). Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1990, Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Commerce.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (199 1a). Maney Income of Households, Families, and Persons in the United
States: 1990 (Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 174). Washington, OC: U.S.
Department of Commerce.

U.S, Bureau of the Census (1991b). Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1991. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Commerce.

National Assessment of Vocational Education: Vinal Report to Congress R19

ead


Grubb, W.N., Brown, C., Kaufman, P., & Lederer, J. (1990). Order Amidst Complexity: The Status of
Coordination Among Vocational Education, Job Training Partnership, and Welfare-to-Work
Programs, Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Grubb, W.N., & Kraskouskas, E. (1992). A Time to Every Purpose: litegrating Academic and
Occupational Education in Conununity Colleges and Technical Institutes. Berkeley, CA:
National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Grubb, W.N., & McDonnell, L.M. (1991). Local Systems of Vocational Education and Job Trai
Diversity, Interdependence, and Effectiveness. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in
Vocational! Education.

Grubb, W.N., & Stasz, C. (1993). Integrating Academic and Vocational Education: Progress Under the
Carl Perkins Ameudments of 1990. Draft report prepared for the National Assessment of
Vocational Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational
Education.

Guttman, R.M. (1992). Bring job training into the mainstream. In Making Seuse of Federal Job
Training Policy: 24 Expert Recommendations to Create a Coniprehensive and Unified Federal Job
Training System (p. 29). Washington, DC: National Youth Employment Coalition and
William T. Grant Foundation Commission on Youth and America's Future.

Hamermesh, DS., & Rees, A. (1984). The Economics of Work and Pay. New York: Harper and Row.

Harer, M.D., (1993). Recidivism Amoug Federal Prison Releases in 1987: A Preliminary Report.
Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research and Evaluation.

Hauser, &.M., Sewell, W.H., & Alwin, D.F. (1976). High school effect on achievement. In W.H.
Sewell, R.M. Hauser, & D. Featherman (Eds.), Selooling and Achievement in American
Society. Academic Press.

Hayward, BJ. (1992). Dropout Prevention in Vocational Education: Findings From the First Tivo Years
of the Demoustration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco.

Hayward, BJ., & Wirt, J.G. (1989). National Assessment of Vocational Education, Final Report, Vol. V.
Handicapped and Disadvantaged Students: Access to Quality Vocational Education.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Hayward, G.C., Dornsife, C.C., Bragg, D.D., Hoerner, J.L., & Clowes, D.A. (1993). A Literatnre
Review for Tech Prep. Draft report prepared for the National A: ment of Vocational
Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Heckman, J., Roselius, R. & Smith, J. (1993). “U.S. Education and Training Policy: A Re-
evaluation of the Underlying Assumptions Behind the ‘New Consensus'.” Unpublished
manuscript, working paper CSE94-1, University of Chicago.

Henke, R. (1994). The Supply and Demand ef Vocational Education Teacliers: A Revicw of the
Literature, Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates.

Herchenrocther, S$. (1993). Retain or retrain? Not so rhetorical a question, National Planning
Association, 8 (1-2), 39-43.

eld

National Assessment of Vocational Education: Linal Report lo Congress RY


Volume V

Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and the Department of
Health and Human Services. Like the Perkins and JTPA programs, JOBS requires
a high level of cooperation with education and job training programs at the state
and local level. Because both JOBS and JTPA are designed primarily to help find
employment for the unemployed, the issues of coordination with vocational
education are quite similar. For this reason, the JOBS program is included in this
analysis, although Congress did not specify it for inclusion.

JOBS was authorized by the Family Support Act of 1988, a law enacted to
provide public assistance applicants and recipients with education, job training,
and work activities to help them achieve self-sufficiency. Under the statute, states
must establish a JOBS program, and all welfare recipients with children over age
three (or over age one at state discretion) must register for it.

JOBS offers a wide range of work-related preparation including basic and
remedial education, job skills training, and postsecondary education. States are
required to provide: high school education or high school equivalency programs;
basic literacy education; English as a second language; job skills training; and job
readiness, job development, and job placement activities. States must also
provide at least two of the following: group and individual job search, on-the-job
training, community work experience, or work supplementation. Child care,
transportation, and other support services needed to permit participation must
also be provided.

To qualify for enhanced federa! funding, states must give priority to four target
groups: parents under age 24 who have not completed high school and are not
enrolled in high school; recipients who have received AFDC for at least 36
months during the last 60; parents under age 24 with little recent work history;
and any member of a family in which the youngest child is within two years of
becoming ineligible for AFDC because of age.

The Department of Health and Human Services administers the program.
Services are funded by states with federal matching funds. States are given wide
discretion in structuring their JOBS programs, determining which mix of services
to offer to clients, and designating service providers. The entities providing JOBS
services include public schools, community colleges, universities, community-
based organizations, state ES offices, vocational/technical schools, and others
performing under contract with DOL, JTPA agencies, and private organizations.

COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS IN FEDERAL LAW
All of these programs include provisions for coordination. Virtually all of the job-

training statutes require coordination with JTPA and many require coordination
with Perkins, as indicated below.

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Progrants 55
66


Volume V

Summary

In response to calls from the employment preparation community for an
overarching coordinating body at the state level, recent federal legislation has
allowed the voluntary creation of SHRICs. As yet, few states have elected to
establish the type of supercouncil outlined by law, and even fewer have
established SHRICs that include the state’s Perkins program. However, almost
half of the states have some form of supercouncil that supersedes the various
state agencies with vocational education and job training responsibilities and has
authority over all such programs. Although states often extol their supercouncils’
success in improving collaboration among agencies, there is little evidence to
verify their conclusions.

Perkins and JTPA requirements have been successful in promoting coordination
at the state level — most state vocational education agencies, both secondary and
postsecondary, reported that they are involved in coordination activities with
other employment preparation agencies. Information-sharing and joint planning
are most common. Other, possibly more substantive activities are not common,
but state funding policies can and do serve as fiscal incentives for vocational
education institutions to coordinate with JTPA and other job-training programs.
Most postsecondary state agencies reported that they facilitate coordination by
funding flexible programs including short courses, open-entry /open-exit
courses, and other nontraditional formats. In short, the vast majority of states are
sharing information about programs and engaging in joint planning.

COORDINATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

The Perkins Act includes only one coordination requirement that falls on local
education agencies:

Local plans must describe procedures to coordinate vocational education
with JTPA “in order to avoid duplication and to expand the range of and
accessibility to vocational education services.” 4

However, this single requirement can be a most effective one. Many researchers
have concluded that local efforts and activities are “the primary forces that

support or discourage coordination among vocational education and job training
programs.”43

Many Models of Coordination

Coordination at the local level takes a wide variety of forms. Researchers have
conducted several case studies and some patterns have emerged. Grubb et al.45
identify eight approaches to coordination among vocational education, JTPA,
and welfare-to-work programs:

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal fob-Training Programs a)



Volume V

Table A-3.1 (continued)
Comparison of Legislative Requirements for

Essential Elements of Employment Training Programs

FEATURE

ADULT EDUCATION ACT

NATIONAL APPRENTICESHIP ACT -

Purpose

To assist states to improve education
opportunities for adults who lack basic
literacy skills. Literacy is defined as an
individual's ability to read, write, and
speak English, compute and solve
problems at levels of proficiency necessary
to function on the job and in society, to
achieve one's goals, and develop one's
knowledge and potential. Adult education
programs should: (1) enable the acquisition
of basic literacy to allow participants to
function independently; 8 provide
instruction to enable job training and
subsequent employment; (3) enable adults
to continue their education to at least the
secondary level; and (4) improve
participants’ ability to have a positive
vifect on the literacy of their children.

To encourage and promote the
establishment of apprenticeship programs.
Apprenticeship programs are a
combination of classroom instruction and
on-the-job training in which workers lear
skilled occupation an d ear a nationally
recognized credential. Although DOL.
provides technical assistance to program
sponsors, the actual programs are
voluntarily operated by employers,
employee associations or management and
labor groups.

Administrative
Auspices

Office of Vocational and Adult Education,
US. Department of Education (ED). Basi¢
grants are allocated by formula to the state
education agency which administers funds
at the local level to eligible entities.

Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training,
USS. Department of Labor

Fiscal Year 10/1 -9/30 None
Program Year 7/1 -6/30 None
Planning Cycle} Four-year plan was submitted to ED by None

states for 1989-93. Revision due 4/92 for

extension to 199
Reporting Annual report of enraliment statistics, None
Requirements federal, state, and local expenditures and

programs toward state goals.

(Continued) (Continued)
(Continued)
i a5
a

A-14

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Progranis


REFERENCES

Adelman, C. (1990). The data game. Change, May/June 1990, 44-45.

Adelman, N.E. (1989). The Case for Integrating Academic and Vocational Education. Washington, DC:
Policy Study Associates.

Ainsworth, R.G. (1991). Improving the Effectiveness of te Employment Service: Defining the Issues
(Research Report Number 91-01). Washington, DC: National Commission for
Employment Policy.

Alabama Department of Post-Secondary Education (undated). A Study of Alabama Prison
Recidivism Rates of Those lumates Having Completed Vocational and Academic Programs While
Incarcerated Between the Years of 1987 Thru 1991. Montgomery, AL: Author.

Alsalam, N., Fischer, G.E., Ogle, L.T., Rogers, G.T., & Smith, T.M. (1993). The Condition of

Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics.

Alsalam, N., Ogle, L.T., Rogers, G.T., & Smith, T.M. (1992). The Condition of Education.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Alt, M. (1994). The Current Status of Supercouncils and Their Activities. Paper prepared for the
National Assessment of Vocational Education, U.S. Department of Education. Berkeley,
CA: MPR Associates.

Altonji, J.G. (1992). The Effect of High School Curriculum on Education aud Labor Market Outcomes.
(NBER Working Paper 4142). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges (1991). Community College Involvement
in Contracted Training and Other Economic Development Activities: A Report of a National
Survey. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges (1992). 1992 AACJC Community,
Technical, and Junior College Statistical Yearbook, 1992 Statistical Abstract. Washington, DC:
Author.

American Vocational Association (1990). The AVA Guide to the Carl D. Perkins Vecational Education
and Applied Technology Education Act oj 1990. Alexandria, VA: Author.

American Vocational Association (1992). The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Education Act of 1990: The Final Regulations. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Anastazi, A. (1982). Psychological Testing. New York: MacMillan.
Asche, M., Elson, D.E., Nichols, A., & Williams, A. (1993). The Impact of Educational Reform on
Vocational Education. Draft report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational

Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Association for School, College, and University Staffing (1993). Teacher Supply and Demand in the
United States, 1993 Report. Evanston, tL: Author.

R-2 National Assyssuigut of Vocational Education: Final Report to Cong
a0


Volume V

Table A-3.1 (continued)
Comparison of Legislative Requirements for
Essential Elements of Employment Training Programs

JOB OPPORTUNITY AND BASIC
SKILLS (JOBS) TRAINING

PROGRAMS
FEATURE WAGNER-PEYSER (FAMILY SUPPORT ACT)
(Continued) (Continued)
Eligibility All employers seeking workers and Where state resources permit, all non-

persens legally authorized to work in the
nited States who are seeking
employment. Priority given to veterans,
with disabled veterans receiving
preference. States are required to provide

States may provide specialized assistance
to youth apes 16 to 22, women, older
workers, persons with disabilities, rural
residents, and the economically
disadvantaged.

job counseling for persons with disabilities.

exempt AFDC recipients must participate
in the JOBS program if they reside ina
subdivision covered by JOBS and are
guaranteed child care under 45 CFR Part

‘55. Exempt recipients are: (1) the ill,
elderly, or incapacitated; (2) caretakers of
ill family members; (3) primary caretakers
of children under age 3 (or under age 3 but
not less than 1 at sate option); (4)
employed 30 hours or more a week; (5) in
at least the second trimester of pregnancy;
(6) children under age 16, or children
attending school full-time; (7)residents of a
remote area where the program is
unavailable; or (8) VISTA yolunteers.
Exempt AFDC recipients may participate
ona voluntary basis.

Primary Service
Providers

Local Employment Service offices

Public schools, community colleges,
universities, community based
organizations, state employment service,
vocational / technical schools, and services
provided by contract with Department of

abor, Job Training Partnership agencies,
and private organizations.

Primary Service
Delivery System

State employment security agencies

State Department of Human Services or
Departments of Social Services determine
which services are needed and arrange for
delivery with a variety of service
providers.

Primary State employment security agencies State Departments of Human Services or
Decision-Making, Department of Social Services
Entity

(Continued)

1238

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs



Volume V

CONCLUSION

Nationally, about 37.8 percent of Perkins Title II-C funds were allocated to
postsecondary recipients in FY93, a 6.4 percent decrease in funds to the
postsecondary sector over the first two years of implementation of the 1990 Act.
Statutory requirements that states conduct needs assessments and estimate
secondary and postsecondary shares in state plans appear to have had an impact
on sector shares, as most of the changes in shares occurred in the first year of the
new legislation.

A number of changes in within-state allocations identified in the Interim Report
continued into the second year of Perkins implementation (FY93). These included
the decrease in the number of basic grant awards, the increase in the size of
remaining awards (at both levels, but especially at the secondary level), and the
large-scale formation of school district consortia. Federally specified formulas for
within-state basic grant allocations have also resulted in greater concentration of
federal funds in school districts and postsecondary institutions with disadvan-
taged students well as in urban areas. On the other hand, because of the
widespread formation of consortia, Perkins funds are now disbursed to more
districts than they had been in the past.

New Perkins rules for allocations within school districts are being implemented
in most districts with individual grants, but a number of implementation issues
have arisen. Most districts with individual grants allocate some funds to schools
or programs and retain some funds for use at the district level. District-wide
services may not be considered subject to the Perkins within-district priority on
funding sites and programs with the highest concentrations of special popula-
tions. Rules about within-district allocations in the 1990 Act do not appear to
have changed the total number of schools receiving support.

Case study findings suggest that administrators balance legal requirements to
give priority to schools and programs with concentrations of disadvantaged
students, with desires to support schools or programs that need to upgrade
offerings or that are seen as high quality and hence deserving of support. The
case study sites also reveal that districts making allocation decisions are more
likely to consider absolute numbers rather than proportions of special needs
students ina school when determining within-district allocations.

School districts with individual grants report that purchase of equipment or
curriculum materials is a primary use for some portion of their basic grant funds,
followed by expenditures aimed at upgrading staff capacity. Supplemental
services are reported as a use of Perkins funds in only 60 percent of the districts,
but 87 percent of districts have spent funds on at least one kind of service aimed
at special population students. Districts with the greatest concentrations of
special population students and urban districts report a somewhat different set
of spending priorities, including a greater likelihood of using funds for supple-

24 3 er Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds


to the Omnibus Survey, along with 60 of the 104 Omnibus nonrespondents. Of the
nonrespondents, all vocational districts with enrollments of 1,000 or more were
sampled, and smaller districts were sampled with a ratio of roughly one-half.

Among postsecondary institutions, 281 institutions were sampled from the
Omnibus sample of 1,251 eligible postsecondary institutions, with probability
proportionate to the square root of enrollment, and also stratifying for Census
region, institution status, and 1991-92 Perkins funding status.

Data Collection

The data collection included mailing of survey materials, telephone contacts to
collect the data, and data retrieval followup.

Survey Mailout

Original survey materials were mailed beginning June 10, 1993. These materials
included a questionnaire, a cover letter signed by the Department of Education
project officer, and a card with definitions of terms used in the questionnaire. The
intent was to complete all responses by telephone interview, so no return
envelope was included. Recipients were instructed to call the toll-free
information line if they wished to appoint someone else to complete the survey.

Telephone Data Collection

Telephone data collection for the surveys began approximately two weeks after
each was mailed. The telephone interviewer followed a script to verify that the
survey had been received; if it had, the interviewer tried to conduct the interview
at that time. If it was not a convenient time for the respondent, the interviewer
made an appointment to call back. If someone else was to act as the respondent,
the new respondent was contacted. In the event the respondent had not received
the survey, new materials were mailed, and the interviewer set up an
appointment to collect the questionnaire responses two weeks later.

Data Retrieval Followup

As questionnaires were completed, all response information was entered into the
survey management system. Questionnaire responses were manually edited and
coded, and additional followup was conducted to resolve questions or problems.
Data retrieval calls began August 5, 1993.

Final Response Rates

The final response rates for both state surveys (State Directors of Vocational
Education and State Directors of Postsecondary Occupational/Technical
Education) were 100 percent. For the surveys in which sampling was conducted,
the final response rates were 95 percent for postsecondary institutions, 92 percent

Tad Technical Appendix



vocational teachers (the latter group includes consumer home economics and
industrial arts teachers). These limitations were avoided in the National
Assessment of Vocational Education Teacher Survey (discussed above).

The methodology for the SASS is described in more detail in Choy et al. (1993,
Appendix C) and in Kaufman and Huang (1993).

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

The National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) is a new survey designed
to collect comprehensive data on institutional policies and practices affecting
faculty in postsecondary education institutions, and on the demographics,
professional backgrounds, and working conditions of these faculty.

The NSOPF was administered for the first time in the 1987-88 academic year, and
for the second time in 1992-93. The National Assessment used the 1987-88 faculty
component of the NSOPF to examine the qualifications of postsecondary
vocational faculty in two-year institutions. (The 1992-93 data were not available
in time for our use.)

Three survey components are included in the 1987-88 NSOPF: (a) an Institutional
Survey providing institution-level data on faculty counts, tenure rules, and
offered benefits, from a stratified random sample of 480 institutions; (b) a
Department Chair Survey of 3,029 department chairpersons (or their equivalent)
from within participating institutions; and (c) a Faculty Survey of 11,013 faculty
members from within participating institutions.

The universe for the NSOPF consists of all postsecondary institutions meeting
the following criteria: The institution is nonproprietary; is accredited by an
agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education; and grants a two-year
(associate) or higher degree. In 1987-88, this included 3,159 institutions. It is
important to note that the NSOPF does not include proprietary institutions;
faculty in these institutions may have different qualifications than those in public
and private institutions.

COMMUNITY CASE STUDIES

The Community Case Studies provide a more in-depth view of the issues
covered by the Omnibus Survey. These case studies included 20 selected
communities across the country, with a community defined as an area containing
one local secondary education agency; at least one comprehensive high school; at
least one area vocational school or district-supported vocational high school; and
at least one two-year public postsecondary institution within reasonable
commuting distance. This definition proved adequate for urban areas, but
sometimes had to be loosened to provide sample sites in suburban and rural
areas.

Technical Appendix

L i) 1 T-37


Volume V

programs and many offer similar services to similar target populations,
Congress has historically been concerned about the potential for overlap and
duplication of effort, resulting in inefficient use of federal monies. Therefore,
Congress has included provisions for cooperation in the authorizing
legislation for all the major programs.

To further promote this objective, the 1992 reauthorization of JTPA included a
provision authorizing the creation of State Human Resource Investment
Councils. These broadly inclusive new councils would replace or work
together with the many existing councils that oversee different education and
training programs. Moreover, to make it easier for people seeking training to
get information about programs, the Clinton administration has proposed
One-Stop Career Centers in the FY 1995 budget.

These issues and developments raise a number of questions:

. How much and what kind of coordination are needed? How
effective are traditional coordination efforts and arrangements?
How are efforts to develop new means of coordination
proceeding?

Chapter 3, on coordinating vocational education and federal job training
programs, examines these and related issues.

Mitreduction vii

ql


Mangum, G.L. (1992). Critiquing Job Training 2000. In Making Sense of Federal Job Training Policy:
24 Expert Recommendations to Create a Comprehensive and Unified Federal Job Training System
(pp. 26-27). Washington, DC: National Youth Employment Coalition and William T.
Grant Foundation Commission on Youth and America’s Future.

Markus, G.S., Howard, J.P-F., & King, D.C. (1993). Integrating community service and classroom
instruction enhances learning: Results from an experiment, Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, (Winter 1993), 410-419.

Marsh, H.W. (1991). Employment during high school: Character building or subversion of goals?
Sociology of Education, 64(3), 172-189.

Marshall, R.
Yor!

Tucker, M. (1992). Thinking for a Living: Education and the Wealth of Nations. New
Basic Books. .

Martindale, M., & Branden, L. (1994). Survey of Employers, Draft report prepaved for the National
Assessment of Vocational Education. Rockville, MD. Westat.

McCormick, A., & Holmes, P. (1994). Computers and Vocational/Teelnica! Education. Dratt report
prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Berkeley, CA: MPR
Associates.

McCormick, A.C, (1994). Recoguition of Applied Acadenic Cou
Colleges aud Universities. Berkeley, CA: MPR Associat

on to Public Four-Year

McDonnell, L. M., and Zellman, GL. (3993). Education and Training for Work in the Fifly States: A
Compendium of State Policies. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

McHenry, J.[., Hough, L-M., Toquam, J.L., Hanson, M.A., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project validity
The relationship between predictor and criterion domains. Personnel Psychology,

McKillup, W.D., Davis, EJ., Coballa, T.R., & Oliver, JS. (1993). A Stuy of Applied Mathematics and
Principles of Technology Relative to the College Preparatory Curriculum: Final Report. Athens,
GA: University of Georgia.

Medrich, E., & Henke, R. (1994), The Labor Market Outcomes Associated With Vocational
Coursetaking aud Skill Development: A Vocational Supplement to Gametou. Paper prepared
for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates.

Medrich, E., & Vergun, R. (1993). Earnings and Employment Outcomes for Postsecondary Degree
Holders in Voeatioual Subject Areas. Draft report prepared for the National Assessment of
Vocational Education. Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates.

Mertens, D.M.. Seitz, P’., & Cox, S. (1982). Vocational Education aud the High School Dropout.
Columbus, OH: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Meyer, R. (1993), Outcomes of secondary vocational education, In L. D. Muraskin (Ed.),
Secondary Vocational Education: Availability, Courselaking, aid Outcomes. Washington, DC:
USS. Department of Education.

Meyer, R., & Wise, D. (1982), High school preparation and carly labor force experience. In R. B.
Furman & 1. Wise (Eds.), The Youth Labor Market Problem: Its Nati
Consequences. Chicago: Universi

Causes, and
y of Chicago Press.

National Assesment of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress R13



Volume V

Table A-3.14
Type of Barriers Reported by Two-Year Pubiic Postsecondary Institutions
Who Reported Some Kind of Barrier to Cooperation (Percent)

Percent of Postsecondary Institutions
with Program
Factor JTPA JOBS
No factors have inhibited providing services 49 49
jointly
Of those who reported factors preventing or
limiting their institution from providing
joint services:
Different purposes and goals 26 l4
Incompatible schedules for courses /classes 19 . 9
Incompatible planning cycles, fiscal vears, or MW 5
geographical area
Difficulty in meeting JTPA/JOBS x 5
performance standards ~ :
Lack of cooperation from JTPA/JOBS staff 20 7
Inadequate resources from [TPA ‘JOBS 32 Is
Burdensome paperwork or reporting - 15
requirements ‘ °
Political barriers / resistance 2 10
ITPA/JOBS clients poorly prepared 25 13
Lack of state or institutional resources for » 19
ITPAsIOBS clients ~
Lack of time or resources for coordination 33 27
Other Is 47

Source: Omnibus Survey ot Postsecondary Institutions

AN Coondmating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs



¢ Survey of Public Vocational School Districts
¢ Survey of Public Secondary Schools
¢ Survey of Two-Year Public Postsecondary Institutions

The respondents for the three district surveys were the district director of ,
vocational education; for the secondary school survey, the school principal (who
in many cases forwarded the survey to the school’s vocational education
department head); and for the postsecondary institution survey, the institution's
president (who typically forwarded the survey to the dean for occupational/
technical education).

Sample Selection

All eligible respondents were surveyed (i.e., we conducted a census survey) for
four of the Omnibus Surveys: the two surveys of state directors of vocational
education, the survey of vocational districts, and the survey of public two-year
postsecondary institutions. (All survey sample sizes are listed in Table T.2.)

Table T.2
Survey Sample Size and Response Rates for the 1992 Omnibus Surveys

Survey | Response
Sample Rate

Survey Size (Percent)

Survey of State Directors of Secondary Vocational 578 91
Education

Survey of State Directors of Postsecondary Occupational / 578 87
Technical Education

Survey of Secondary School Districts, Version A 899 86

Survey of Secondary School Districts, Version B 898 84

Survey of Public Vocational School Districts 3618 71

Survey of Public Secondary Schools 3,130 69

Survey of Two-Year Public Postsecondary Institutions 1,2514 79

* Census of all eligible respondents.

Source: Chaney (1993)

ba
Cy
rs)

Technical Appendix TS


(€661) AouryD :adan0g

ee ¥08 ge £82 PE POL ev 69h ueqiny
vy V82 V9 £9 9g TLL 62 96 ueqingns
oF SLL ve LL BP SEL 6€ wtp yeany
uoeziuegin jo [aay]
96 £08 8s Ost Lg 069 “go zag 76-1661 UW! Pepuny ION
ee OL 9% x4 eZ S8L ws 61P 26-1661 Ut papung
snes Sulpuny suniog
6€ CLL Le wOE 6€ LBL 68 oe age]
Oe F08 LE SOc st SEL os Vib wnIpay|
ve CLL Le TLL vs GL le ep yews
azis uawyjomug
x4 O82 x4 Ex«4 oF 54 9 STP 1eIOL
Jou ayeunysy Joa ayeunsg, Joa aqewUysy, Joia ayeunysy
piepurisg prepuris prepues prepueis
sieak 6-661 Saye UOAUA}aI [OOYDS 76-1661 a10jaq,

gased wy uopenped
103 pasmnbar
syppaxd oturapeoe
jo uonzodoid
pasearout yeu} yUaIAg

axojaq daid-ypa} 105
enon ButAjrpour
paysRys yeyy JUBA

yo samseaur 8uny991[09
Aqyuarn yuaoiag

sasinod stuapeoe

pur Jeuoyed0A ssorDe
P]NdTLUNd BuyesBaqur
Paye}s 7eY} JUBdIOg

dystayeIeYp PUNSIG

SPLSIq [ooYIS Arepuoras g UOTsIaA 105 A[UO paydaT[OD eye 10} sIOL1Y prepue}s paydaTag

SL deh

T-11

Technical Appendix



Volume V
Table 2.8
Percent of States Conducting Activities to Establish
Vocational Performance Systems, 1990-1993
Completed Between In Process,
1990-1993 1993
Post- Post-
State Activity Secondary | secondary | Secondary | secondary
Selected from existing measures 78 78 4 2
Developed new measures 86 88 6
Assessed the quality of measure 47 48 29 26
chosen
Involved local program administrators 96 94 2 2
in choosing measures
Examined existing data to determine 78 64 6 16
performance level
Established performance standards 90 78 8 16
Utilized business /industry standards 43 30 12 24
Assessed student performance using 35 34 51 52
standards
Evaluated vocational programs using 39 36 55 58
standards
Modified programs based on 22 28 51 40
evaluation of results
Assessed access of special populations 31 28 $1 48
to high quality programs
Assessed vocational education in “all 19 14 49 46
aspects of the industry”

Source: 1993 Followup Surveys of Secondary and Postsecondary State Directors

indicated that their states had adopted definitions. Increases between the two
years in activities related to “all aspects” were slightly greater at the
postsecondary than the secondary level. More generally, it appears that states
began Perkins implementation by focusing on areas that carried federally
prescribed deadlines for implementation, such as establishment of performance
systems. They moved on to other requirements, such as implementing “all
aspects,” somewhat later.

The State Administration of the Perkins Act ind 30
50



National Center for Education Statistics (1991). Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (1992). Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (1993a). Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (1993b). The Condition of Education. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.

National Center on Education and the Economy (1990). America’s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages.
Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. Rochester, NY: Author.

National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education Vocational Education Task Force (1988).
Working Toward Equity: A Report on Implementation of the Sex Equity Provisions of the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

National Commission tor Employment Policy (1991). Coordinating Federal Assistance Programs for
the Economically Disadvantaged: Reconunendations and Background Materials (Special Report
No. 31). Washington, DC: Author.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation at Risk: The lnperative for
Educational Reforn:. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Commission on Responsibilities for Financing Postsecondary Education (1993). Making
College Affordable Again. Washington, DC: Author.

National Commission on Secondary Vocational Education (1984). The Unfinished Agenda: The Role
of Vocational Education in Higit School. Columbus, OH: National Center for Research in
Vocational Education.

National Coordinating Council for Vocational Student Organizations (1990). Vocational Student
Organizations: A Reference Guide. Reston, VA: Author.

National Displaced Homemakers Network (1990). The More Things Chauge... A Status Report on
Displaced Homemakers and Single Parents in the 1980s. Washington, DC: .suthor.

National Education Goals Panel (1991). The National Education Goals Report: Building a Nation of
Learners. Washington, DC: Author.

National Education Goals Panel (1992). The National Education Goals Report 1992. Washington,
DC: Author,

National Youth Employment Coalition (1992), Making Sense of Federal fob Training Policu: 24
Expert Recommendations to Create a Comprehensive and Unified Federal fob Trainin
Washington, DC: National Youth Employment Coalition ad William T. Grant
Foundation Commission on Youth and America's Future.

system,

O'Harrow, Jr., R. (1993). “Opening Doors lo Success,” Washington Post, Oct. 11, pp. A1, A8.

O'Neil, M. (1990). Correctional higher education: Reduced recidivism? Journal of Correctional
Education, 41(1), 28-31

National Assessment of Vocational Education; Vinal Report acon Tens R-I5
fe



Volume V

impact. Districts are allowed to form consortia in order to meet the minimum
grant criterion, or to allow area vocational schools to receive funding.

The new provisions of the Act and the development of consortia lead to the
following questions:

. How are Perkins funds allocated among and within districts?
Are they more concentrated than before the Act? Are they better
targeted on special population students? How are they used?

These issues are addressed in Chapter 1, on allocation and uses of Perkins
funds, which examines the distribution of funds from states to localities and
within localities.

State Administration of Perkins Programs

In response to concern that some states were not using their allotment of
Perkins funds appropriately and that localities needed more resources and
flexibility to implement the Perkins Act, Congress reduced states’ adminis-
trative allotment in the 1990 Act, but also added new responsibilities.
Prominent among these responsibilities was the development of new systems
of performance standards and measures. Since states are important agents in
vocational education, there is some concern about the effects of this change:

. Do states have sufficient resources to administer their Perkins
programs and carry out their new responsibilities? How are they
handling the implementation of the Act’s provisions? Has their
ability to assist localities been affected?

These questions are addressed in Chapter 2, on state administration of the
Perkins Act. It examines changes in staffing and responsibilities within state
offices of vocational education, as well as the interactions between the federal
government, states, and localities in implementing the Act.

The Coordination of Perkins, JTPA, and Other Federal Training Programs

The federal government supports workforce training through several acts of
Congress and numerous federal programs. Training-related legislation
includes the Perkins Act; the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA); the Adult
Education Act; the National Apprenticeship Act; the Rehabilitation Act of
1973; the Wagner-Peyser Act; and the Jobs Opportunity and Basic Skills Act
(JOBS).

The General Accounting Office has pointed out that there are some 125
federal ed-acation and employment training programs for adults and out-of-
school youth. Because preparation for employment is an objective of all these

vi Introduction

10



Volume V

declines in staff reported more than 15 grantees per professional employee, and
the median number of grants per employee for this group of states was 4.0. It
should also be noted that 13 states reported increases in staff between 1990 and
1993, and for those states the median number of awards per employee was
approximately one.

What stands out in these data, on bath federal dollars and local awards in
relation to state secondary-level staffing, is a small subset of states that have
experienced declines in staffing to the point where it is questionable that they
have sufficient staff to implement federal policy. This subset includes three states
with declines in staffing of 50 percent or greater that show well over $2.5 million
in federal funds per employee, and 42.5, 39.7, and 26 local awards per
professional employee in 1993. It also includes one state showing 22.4 local
awards per professional staff, but much smaller federal dollars per employee.
Since complete data are not available for all states, it is possible that a few more
states may fit this description as well.

The data for this analysis may not show all staff engaged in administering
vocational programs at the state level. The Followup surveys ask only about
personnel in the agency or division responsible for administering vocational
education. Some state education departments have cut staff and consolidated or
reorganized their operations. Under such circumstances, responsibility for
vocational education may be distributed beyond separate “divisions” of
vocational education. For example, funds allocation responsibilities may be
shifted to a general office responsible for monitoring federal grants. Or,
responsibility for implementing standards and measures requirements may be
lodged with a department-wide office of evaluation or assessment. Those staff
are likely not to be captured in the survey data.®

At the postsecondary level, staff engaged fully or primarily in administering
vocational education increased between 1990 and 1993 (Table 2.4). Combining
data from the 1992 and 1993 surveys, we find that an average of 37.3 persons per
state administered postsecondary vocational education in 1990, but the number
increased to 59.3 by 1993. The percentage increase in average number of staff
administering occupational education appears to be almost identical to the
percentage increase in overall staff in the agencies in which postsecondary
occupational education administration is housed. Median occupational staff sizes
are much smaller at the postsecondary than the secondary level, however — 6.4
persons in 1990 and 7.4 persons in 1993. In other words, a few states have very
large state-level postsecondary occupational administrative staffs, but in most
states the staffs are much smaller.

These findings should be interpreted somewhat cautiously, for several reasons.
First, the considerable differences across the states in vocational staff sizes may
be due to differences in the ways in which states administer two-year
postsecondary education; some states include administrators located at

The State Administration of the Perkins Act 4 4 33


Volume V

Table A-3.1 (continued)
Comparison of Legislative Requirements for
Essential Elements of Employment Training Programs

CARL D. PERKINS VOCATIONAL

FEATURE AND APPLIED TECHNOLOGY ACT REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973
(Continued) (Continued)
Eligibility Eligible fund recipients include most Local | To be eligible for VR se

Education Agencies (LEAs) and
community colleges with vocational
programs, as well as public postsecondary
| institutes. Area vocational
may receive Perkins funds by
participating in consortia with LEAs. The
intrastate allocation of Perkins funds is
governed by a formula that provides a
dispro-portionately large share of funds to
recipients with high concentrations of
special population students, including the
economically and the educationally
disadvantaged; individuals with
isabilities; limited English proficient
students and participants in sex equity
program among others.

individual must: (1) have a physical or

ental impairment that is a substantial
pediment to employment; (2) be able to
benefit in terms of employment from VR
services; and (3) require VR services to
prepare for, enter, engage in, or retain
painful employment. All eligible
individuals receive the eligibility
assessment, vocational counseling, referral
services, and job placement services at no
cost to the individual. However,
individuals may be required to pay for
other services, based on financial ability.
Priority must be given to persons with the
most severe disabilities.

Primary Service

Comprehensive high schools, vocational

A state VR counselor provides some

Providers high schools, and vocational /technical services directly to the eligible individual
centers. and arranges for and /or purchases other
services from providers in the community.
Primary Service | State education agencies State vocational rehabilitation services
Delivery System agencies administer the programs.
Primary State board of education State vocational rehabilitation services
Decision-Making
Entity I
(Continued)
COA
a Wony's
Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs A-13



Weber, J.M. (1986). The Role ef Vocational Education in Decreasing the Dropout Rate. Columbus, OH:
National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Weber, J.M. (1988). Dropout rates for students in different high schoo! curricula. Jourual of
Vocational Education Researcl, 13, 35-49.

White, J.R. (1990). Jobs New Jersey: A model concept in cooperation. Perspective: Essays and
Reviews of Issues in Employment Security and Employment and Training Programs, 6, 25-30.

Whitworth, L.L. (1982). New pathways to apprenticeship, VocEd, 57(1), 38-40.

William T. Grant Foundation Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship (1988). Tle Forgotten
Half: Non-College Youth in America. Washington, DC: Author.

Wills, J.L. (1992). A Rambling Path for Certification of Skills. Washington, DC: Center for
Workforce Development, The Institute for Educational Leadership.

Wills, J.L. (1993). Overview of Education and Industry Skill Standards Systems in the United States and
Other Countries, Volume I. The Institute for Educational Leadership.

Wilms, W.W, (1980). Vocational Training and Secial Mobility: A Study of Public aud Proprietary School
Dropouts and Graduates. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

Wirt, J.G., Muraskin, L.D., Goodwin, D.A., & Meyer, R.H. (1989). National Assessment of Vocational

Education, Final Report, Vol. I., Sianmary of Findings and Recommendations. Washington, DC:
US. Department of Education.

Zellman, G.L., Feifer, C., & Hirsch, A.E. (1992). Access to aud Use of Vocational Education in Teen
Parent Programs. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

Zemsky, R. (1993). What Employers Want: Youth Apprenticeships and the Development of Effective
Policies for Improving the Educational Quality of the American Workforce. Paper for the
Association for Public Policy and Management Conference.

Zook, J. (1993, December). Amendment would cut off Pell Grants to prisoners despite data that
show education cuts recidivism, Tlte Cliranicle of Higher Education, p. A24.

ment of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress R-21

a9
hohe


Volume V

Figure 1.1
Perkins Title II-C Allocation Decisions and Expenditures in
Eight School Districts

School District
Characteristics

Methods for Within-District
II-C Allocation

FY93 II-C Grant Sizes and
Expenditures

Large, urban district,
17,000 students grades 9-
12, 75% qualify for
free/reduced price lunch,
93% minority; 20
comprehensive high
schools (1 with strong,
vocational emphasis), 2
magnet programs (1 is
vocational)

Committee of teachers and
administrators meets annually to
determine allocations. In FY92, it
decided to spend funds in all
schools but to spend additional
funds obtained under new Act
(approximately two-thirds of
basic grant) in7 schools with
highest numbers of
disadvantaged students. In FY93,
decided to add 6 more schools on
same basis. The rest of the schools
will be added in FY94, so that all
will be supported at about the
same rate.

$1,329,509

1) Learning Centers in all high schools by
end of FY94. Each will include computer
lab (30 networked PCs), 2 interactive
audio-video consoles, and 3 Associate
Teachers. Centers will provide academic
remediation and career guidance during
and after school hours. Main aim: students
in vocational classes pass state graduation
requirements.

2) Form academic-vocational integration
teams at each school and plan activities
(Perkins pays for teacher time, equipment,
curriculum /materials purchases).

3) Two district-wide officials: job
placement coordinator, special populations
director.

4) Smail amounts for teacher inservice,
attending regional and national meetings.

Large, urban district,
20,000 students in 9-12,
32M qualify for
free/reduced price lunch,
declining enrollment until
recently, 8 comprehensive
high schools, 1 area
vocational facility

All funds described as allocated
district-wide, but aide slots are
targeted to particular
occupational programs in all high
schools (more aides are in school:
with large LEP populations);
guidance program serves all 9th
graders; academic-vocational
integration program was initially
in the area school and is moving
into some comprehensive high
schools; job placement and
exceptional student programs are
housed at the area school and
rotate to all schools; equipment is
primarily for the area school.

‘$2,000,000

1) $700,000: 24 instructional aides for
vocational teachers, including inservice for
aides and teachers

2) $800,000: 4 teachers and 1 administrator;
curriculum development, materials, and
teacher inservice to implement

academic/ vocational integration

3) $250,000: 3 counselors and 1 support
person to implement 9th grade vocational
assessment district wide; 3 job placement
personnel plus support

4) $250,000: equipment for Learning Center
atarea school (hardware, software,
camera, video, ote
5) $140,000: development of vocational
programs for special education students

(continued)

12

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds


Volume V

Table 1.3
Percent of Postsecondary Institutions Receiving Perkins Title II-C Support by
Type of Institution, Enrollment, and Region, FY93

Institution Characteristics Percent With II-C Support
Type
Community colleges 93
Vocational-technical institutes 79
All institutions 87
Enrollment
Less than 2,000 students 77
2,000-4,999 students 93
5,000 students or more 93
Region
Northeast 89
Central 84
South 83
West 96

Source: 1993 Followup Survey of Postsecondary Institutions

postsecondary level, introduction of the formula increased grants to institutions
above the state median for (absolute) number of Pell Grant recipients from 68
percent to 77 percent of Title II-C funds. 15 *

There is also evidence of greater concentration of funds in urban areas under the
new legislation, although the extent of concentration is not as great as the
concentration in school districts with large numbers of disadvantaged students.
In the final year of the 1984 legislation (FY91), school districts in the 50 largest
cities received 17.6 percent of Title [I-C funds, about 7 percent more than they
would have received were awards based solely on total city population. In the
first year of the 1990 Act (FY92), they received 20.2 percent of the funds, or about
22.4 percent more than they would have received were awards based on city
population. Postsecondary institutions in the 50 largest cities received 15.6
percent of fI-C funds in FY91, slightly less Perkins II-C funds than those cities’
share based on population. In FY92, they received 18.8 percent, about 14 percent
more than their share based on population.

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds 7

18


Volume V

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume V Funding and Administration Issues
Introduction w¥
Chapter 1 Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds... 1
Distribution of Funds From States to
Eligible Recipients... . wl
Distribution of Funds Within Districts 8
The Uses of Federal Funds....... ..16
Conclusion...
Endnotes.........
Chapter2 The State Administration of the Perkins Act. 29
Changes in State Staffing and Responsibilities,
1990-1993 cecscteneeeseeeeenneereteessestsnsneessseeesse
State Reports on Administrative
Responsibilities... .
Federal Assistance in State Administration. oe
Local Views of State Performance, 1990-1993
Conclusion,
Endnotes.
Chapter3 Coordinating Vocational Education and
Federal Job-Training Programs... vecsesverveveevere 4D
Introduction............. aa
Overlap and Coordination .
Overview of Programs...
Coordination Requirements i in Federal Law 2D
Barriers to Effective Service Delivery. . 57
Goals of Coordination .
Recent Federal Efforts to Encourage
Coordination sesssgosnsevesieeteseeansvess vores OD.
Coordination at the State Level.. oceeeeseeeerceeeeeeeees 9
Coordination at the Local Level. 0 cee 79
Bureaucratic and Political Realities... ..... 93
CON CUSHION. ice eesesssssssesssssesesosssesns antes voi 96
Endnotes. cccccsscsese ee eeseeessecseesesstisessersssnennmnetssnsnmnnees 99
CHAPTER APPENDICES .0ooooioocccccscssesectsestssestnenttesssneneee Atl
iti


Volume V

Table A-3.6
Summary of States’ Progress in Forming State Human Resource Investment
Councils and Work Force Development Councils, 19934

SHRIC Expected | Work Force Development
Source SHRIC Exists in 1994-95, Council (or Elements) Exists
U.S. Dept. of | Colorado, Indiana Maryland Alabama, California
Labor? Towa Michigan Oregon Maryland, Massachusetts,
North Carolina, Missouri, Montana
Ohio, South Dakota, Nevada, New Hampshire
Texas [total of 8] New Jersey, New York
Oregon, Rhode Island
S. Carolina, S. Dakota,
West Virginia, Washington,
Wyoming, Utah, Vermont
[total of 19]
National Indiana, Maryland, Connecticut, Maine,
Governors’ Massachusetts, Michigan Missouri, New Jersey4
Association
North Carolina, Ohio, New York, Tennessee,
Texas [total of 7] Vermont, Washington,
Wisconsin, Oregon,
Rhode Island [total of 11]
National Indiana, lowa, Ohio, Connecticut, Maine, Oregon,
Alliance of Texas, Vermont [total of 5] Maryland, Massachusetts,
Business
New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Rhode
Island, Washington,
Wisconsin [total of 11]

Different sources have categorized states differently as to whether they have a council and, if so,
whether it qualifies as a SHRIC.

bsome states are counted in more than one category by the Department of Labor; eight of those in
the “undecided” category had also established some elements of a supercouncil, for example.

Discussions indicate that lowa is moving toward establishing a SHRIC (December 1993 and
January 1994). A 1993 document confirms that the Work Force Development Council "constitutes
an evolutionary step” but is not vet a SHRIC (lowa Department of Economic Development et al.).

dOf these councils, NGA reports that New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island have councils that
are quite similar to SHRICs in structure and functions.

Sources: U.S. Department of Labor 1993; National Governors’ Association 1993; National Alliance

of Business 1993.

Daray
du

Coorainating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs

A-25


Volume V

CHAPTER APPENDICES

ro
fay
we



Volume V

Summary

In short, the potential for overlap, duplication, and fragmented effort is high at
the local level. Virtually all of the programs included in the analysis above
provide some services that overlap with other programs. Moreover, differing
definitions for eligibility and variations in administrative requirements in areas
such as planning, accountability, and data collection all serve as significant
potential problems.

GOALS OF COORDINATION

Most policymakers and analysts believe that improving program coordination
can help achieve three goals: eliminate duplication; avoid unnecessary
competition among providers; and improve effectiveness.

Eliminating Duplication

The concern most often expressed about federal employment preparation
programs is that they may be offering essentially the same services to the same
individuals. Since each entity offering a potentially duplicate service (e.g., a
community-based organization and a community college) has overhead costs,
many policymakers fear that tax dollars are not being spent as effectively as
possible, thereby reducing the number of individuals benefiting from the
programs or the impact of the programs on them.

However, in a literature review conducted for the National Assessment, Bailis
and Grubb !¢ found that a number of case studies of state and local JTPA
coordination with vocational education “failed to find empirical evidence of
widespread duplication or waste.” According to a 1990 study by the National
Center for Research on Vocational Education, state and local officials offer
several explanations for the lack of duplication:

[T]he explanations [the agencies] offer for the absence of
duplication include the differences between the types of people
served by vocational education and JTPA, since JIPA generally
serves adults with less education and less labor market experience
than adults in vocational education programs; the differences in the
services they provide, since JTPA provides more job search
assistance, on-the-job training, placement services, and other
support services such as counseling, child care, and transportation
than do educational institutions; and the differences between the
shorter-term training offered by JTPA and the longer-term training
common in vocational education. !7

73

62 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs


Millsap, M.A., & Muraskin, L.D. (in press). Federal vocational education policy in the U.S. In T.
Husen & T.N, Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education, Second
Edition. Oxford, England: Pergammon Press.

Millsap, M.A., Wood, C., Jastrzab, J., & Marder, C. (1989). State and Local Response to the Carl D.
Perkins Act, Case Study Analysis Final Report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

Milne, A., Martindale, M., & Michie, J. (1993, September). Vocational Education in Coimnnunities.
Draft report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Rockville,
MD: Westat.

Mishel, L., & Texeira, R.A. (1991), The Myth of the Coming Labor Shortage: Jobs, Skills, cud Incoines of
Anterican Workforce 2000, Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Moore, R.W. (1992). Heroes ov Villains? A Comparison of Proprietary School and Public Sector
Outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco.

Morra, L. G. (1992). Communication to the Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman of the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate, (GAO/HRD-92-39R).
Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office.

Mullins, A.W. (1993). The Relationship Between Desirable Teacher Competencies and Years of Trade
Experiences, Years of Teaching Experience, and Teacher Training of Trade and Industrial
Teachers in Virginia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Blacksburg, VA: Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Muraskin, L.D. (1989). National Assessment of Vocational Education, Final Report, Vol. I. The
Implemeutation of the Carl D. Perkins Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Muraskin, L.D. (Ed.) (1993). Secondary Vocational Education: Availability, Coursetaking, and
Outconres. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning,

Mumane, RJ., Willet, J.B., & Levy, F. (1993). “The Growing Importance of Cognitive Skills in
Wage Determination.” Unpublished manuscript. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Murphy, K., & Welch, F. (1989). Wage premiums for college graduates: Recent growth and
possible explanations. Educational Rescarclier, May, 17-26.

National Alliance of Business (1987). The Fourth R: Workforce Readiness. Washington, DC: Author.

National Alliance of Business (1993). Building a Workforce Investment System for Amer
Washington, DC: Author.

National Association for Bilingual Education (1992). “Census Reports Significant Increase irr
Language-Minority Population,” NABE News, Nov. 15, Washington, DC: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics (1987). Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: US.
Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (1988). State Policies Concerning Vocational Edneation,
Survey Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

R-14 National Ass

cnrent of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress

219.


Volume V

Uses of Funds at the Secondary Level

According to survey results, the most frequent uses of Title II-C funds by school
districts with individual grants were for purchases of materials, followed by
investments in upgrading staff capacity to implement new programs (Table 1.6).
They were less likely to use their funds to provide supplemental services for
special population students.

Specifically, survey respondents were asked to select which uses their districts
supported from a list of 22 possible uses of Perkins basic grant funds. In FY93 the
three top choices among individually funded districts were:

¢ Purchase of occupationally-relevant equipment (82% of districts)
¢ Purchase of vocational curriculum materials (81% of districts)

¢ Purchase of materials (computers, software, or curricula) for learning labs
or other remedial programs (76% of districts).

Most of the next several choices focused on staff activities or staff development:
¢ Curriculum development or modification (75% of districts)

¢ Staff development to support vocational-academic integration (68% of
districts)

¢ Career counseling or guidance activities (68% of districts)

¢ Other efforts to support the integration of academic and vocational
education (62% of districts).

The use of Perkins funds to provide supplemental services for special
populations occurred in 60 percent of the directly funded districts, and
development or expansion of tech-prep programs in 50 percent, rounding out the
top ten uses. It should be noted that supplemental services are not the only
expenditures that affect special populations students. For example, learning labs
are likely to provide remedial academic assistance, hence they serve education-
ally disadvantaged students disproportionately. If all the questionnaire
categories that identify services for special populations are combined, 87 percent
of districts with individual grants are found to have spent Perkins resources in at
least one of them. These categories include the purchase of materials for learning
labs, adapting equipment for students with disabilities, remedial courses, and
special populations coordinators.

The use of federal funds for purchases of equipment and curriculum materials
has been noted in other studies of federal vocational education legislation as

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds 7


Volume V

Table A-3.18
Coordination With Other Service Providers for
Remedial Education or Adult Basic Education

Percent of Public

Extent of Coordination Two-Year Postsecondary
Institutions
Does not coordinate with other providers of remedial 27

education or adult basic education

Provides remediation for students referred from other 51
programs
Refers students to other remedial education or adult basic 45

education programs

Jointly provides remediation with other programs 26

Other coordination 7

Source: Oninibus Survey of Postsecondary Institutions

148

A-36 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Progranis


Volume V

Table 1.1

Perkins Basic Grant (Title II-C) FY93 Allocations to Secondary and
Postsecondary Levels, and Shares to Secondary Level for FY92 and FY93
(n = 44 states)

Secondary Share
FY93 Allocations (Percent)
Difference

States Secondary | Postsecondary FY93 FY92 in Percentages
Alabama $ 9,081,316 $ 4,643,309 66.2 66.2 0.0
Alaska _ _ _ - _
Arizona 11,393,773 1,583,137 87.8 85.6 22
Arkansas 6,201,095 2,471,764 715 71.0 0.5
California 32,179,158 44,014,730 42.2 45.3 “3.1
Colorado 3,597,489 5,396,235 40.0 40.0 0.0
Connecticut 5,689,030 1,480,201 79.7 78.5 12
Delaware 2.564,357 424,975 85.8 85.0 08
Florida 16,432,289 14,572,031 53.0 52.8 0.2
Georgia 10,961,821 10,034,589 52.2 50.1 21
Hawaii 1,756,443 1,756,443 50.0 50.0 0.0
Idaho 2,412,359 1,154,708 67.6 70.0 24
[llinois 17,633,629 9,759,058 64.4 66.0 1.6
Indiana 11,213,269 6,423,203 63.6 63.6 0.0
lowa 4,386,183 4,295,683 50.5 28.0 22.5
Kansas _ - _ - -
Kentucky - - _ _ _—
Louisiana 8,073,085 6,343,138 56.0 56.0 0.0
Maine 1,760,841 1,760,841 50.0 52.6 -2.6
Maryland 7,335,550 3,143,807 70.0 70.0 0.0
Massachusetts 10,786,482 3,318,087 76.5 81.1 -4.6
Michigan 16,360,588 10,775,829 60.3 58.0 2.3
Minnesota 2,133,051 9,157,068 18.9 9.2 97

5,125,250 5,854,456 46.7 457 10

16,203,239 4,180,361 70.9 70.0 09
Montana 2,054,778 1,210,920 62.9 65.0 -21
Nebraska 2,419,999 2,419,995 50.0 50.0 0.0
Nevada 2,635,360 878,454 73.0 75.0 0.0
New Hampshire _ _ - _ -
New Jersey 13,058,821 4,376,406 74.9 76.7 “18
New Mexico 4 8 4,710,449 8.6 79 0.7
New York 22,246,005 11,408,092 66.1 66.3 0.2
North Carolina 14,693,441 6,671,337 68.8 69.4 0.6

(continued)

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds

14

XN


Volume V

Table A-3.16
Postsecondary Institution Programs With JTPA or JOBS Clients Enrolled

Percent of Postsecondary
Institutions With Program

Program JIPA JOBS
Vocational associate degree programs 53 47
Vocational credit certificate programs 62 43
Short-term or non-credit vocational programs 39 27
Remedial or developmental education 45 54
English as a Second Language (ESL) 8 16
Other. 12 16

Source: Omnibus Survey of Postsecondary Institutions

4 AL
Brae)

A-34, Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs


student interviews included both academic and vocational teachers and students.
Group interviews were used for teachers, students, parents, and business and
community representatives.

Not every type of respondent could be interviewed at each site. Parents were a
particularly difficult group; many refused to be interviewed, or failed to apr ear
for scheduled interviews.

Site visits also included tours of institutions’ facilities and observations in
vocational classrooms whenever possible.

Verification of Omnibus Survey Data

The case study researchers also verified many Omnibus Survey responses by
comparing completed Omnibus Survey forms to data obtained during the site
visits. This verification process provided further evidence of the limited
reliability of the Omnibus Survey funding questions. Other survey questions
were found to be of acceptable reliability.

Further information on the Community Case Studies is available in Milne,
Martindale, & Michie (1993).

FUNDING CASE STUDIES

The 1990 Perkins Act significantly changed the way local basic grant funds are
allocated and used. The funding case studies were designed to collect in-depth
information on the effects of these changes on loca! school districts. For these case
studies, eight sites were selected from the Omnibus Survey regular district
sample, including four sites with large increases in Perkins funding and four
with large decreases. The Funding Case Studies were restricted to the secondary
level because of time and cost limitations.

Sample Selection

The Funding Case Study sample was selected primarily on the basis of changes
in districts’ Perkins funding from 1990-91 to 1991-92. Changes in Perkins
funding were determined by comparing 1991-92 Perkins basic grant allocations
(Title II Part C) with the 1990-91 funds that were combined to form these basic
grants — program improvement funds and the disabled, disadvantaged, and
adult set-aside funds (Title I Part B and sections of Part A). Ideally, data for these
comparisons would have been obtained from the State Records Data Collection;
however, these data were not available at the time the sample needed to be
drawn. Instead, we used funding data from the Omnibus Survey, with follow-up
telephone calls to verify the Omnibus Survey funding information before final
sites were selected.

T-42 Teciinical Appendix


Volume V

administrators conducting curriculum development efforts (such as vocational-
academic integration). Smaller districts are also hiring staff, but equipment
purchases are more likely to figure prominently. Although Figure 1.1 does not
display this information, the greatest use of Perkins II-C funds for staff positions
seems to be occurring in the districts that experienced large increases in their
basic grants under the 1990 Act. Many of these districts, with large
concentrations of disadvantaged students, have also experienced severe budget
constraints and staff cutbacks in the past several years.

Across the case study sites, equipment purchases are primarily for computers
and software for learning centers. In this respect, the case study sites do not
reflect districts as a whole, which were somewhat more likely to report purchases
of occupationally relevant equipment. Jn the case study sites, basic grant funds
are being used to establish or augment centers that provide remedial academic
instruction. Some centers limit their access to students enrolled in vocational
courses, while others do not. The equipment used for academic remediation may
also be used to provide vocational assessments and career information, however.
Since this category of purchase (vocational assessment) was not included in the
Followup Survey, some survey respondents may have selected “occupationally
relevant equipment” to categorize this type of purchase. Guidance services from
central administrative offices are almost always available to all students, not only
to students in occupational programs.

Finally, in-service training for teachers appears to be a relatively small
expenditure item among the case study sites. It may be that curriculum
development activities include substantial resources for in-service training but
that the in-service costs associated with curriculum development are not shown
separately. In addition, the states provide much in-service training.

Uses of Federal Funds in Postsecondary Institutions

At the postsecondary level, the most common reported uses of basic grant funds
are different than at the secondary level, with services for special populations a
more common use of funds (Table 1.6). While purchases of materials are also
prominent at the postsecondary level, expenditures for support services and for
staff play a more prominent role than at the secondary level. Some of the
differences across the levels may be due to differences in the ways secondary and
postsecondary institutions view their mission and the boundaries of occupational
programs, a point discussed further below.

At the postsecondary level, 87 percent of institutions with basic grants report that
they use Title [-C funds for supplemental services. Only 12 percent indicate that
federal funds are sufficient to meet the need for these services (a rate comparable
to the secondary level), but postsecondary institutions are more likely than
school districts to indicate that they use nonfederal funds to pay for special

2

G2
ive)

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Frads



the “base weight,” and produce unbiased estimates if there is no nonresponse in
the survey.

The first step in the weighting process was to assign a base weight to each of the
6,050 establishments in the sample. The base weights were equal to the reciprocal
of the probabilities of selection and depended on the SIC code and size class of
the establishment.

To compensate for losses in the sample due to nonresponse, ratio adjustment
factors were calculated within classes defined by Census region, SIC group, and
size class. These adjustment factors were then applied to the base weights to
obtain the final weights for estimation. Even with the use of the adjusted
weights, the potential for significant biases in the sample-based estimates is high
due to the high degree of nonresponse. Consequently, weighted results from the
Employer Survey should be interpreted with caution since they may not be
genezalizable to the DMI population from which the samples were drawn.

STATE VOCATIONAL SEX EQUITY ADMINISTRATOR SURVEY

The State Vocational Sex Equity Administrator Survey was developed by the
National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity, in conjunction with the Vocational
Education Equity Council. National Assessment staff provided input to ensure
that issues of interest to the assessment were included.

The survey covered issues related to the roles and responsibilities of state sex
equity administrators; the distribution of Perkins funds for programs for sex
equity, single parents, single pregnant women, and displaced homemakers; and
the perceived effects of the Perkins Act on state and local efforts. The survey
consisted of a paper-and-pencil mail questionnaire administered to all state sex
equity administrators.

Sample Selection

The sample was a census of all state vocational sex equity administrators. A list
of administrators was constructed by merging lists from the National Displaced
Homemaker Network and the National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity. The
final list included administrators from all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Guam and Puerto Rico. Since ten states had two administrators, 63
administrators were included on the final list. (The survey administration
revealed an additional three states with two administrators, but these three
administrators were not surveyed.)

Data Collection

Surveys were administered in spring 1992, the end of the first year of 1990
Perking Act implementation. The data collection included two survey mail-outs

T24 Li 8 Technical Appendix



Table T.14
Changes in Basic Grants Received by Case Study Sites, 1990-91 to 1991-92

1990-91
“Basic 1991-92 Percent
Grant” | Basic Grant | Difference | Change
Increased Funding Sites
Site A — Big city $292,205 | $1,353,265 | $1,061,060 363.1
Site B — Big city 636,433 | 1,281,132 644,699 101.3
Site C — Big city . 263,277 | 1,377,834 | 1,114,557 423.3
Site D — Suburb 113,869 243,140 129,271 113.5
Decreased Funding Sites
Site E — Big city 2,309,000 1,302,000 } -1,007,000 43.6
Site F — Rural 163,587 53,984 -109,603 -67.0
Site G — Suburb 230,965 31,931 -199,034 -86.2
Site H — Suburb 914,272 764,375 -149,897 -16.4

Source: Omnibus District Surveys

suburban area near a medium-sized city, and one was predominantly rural.
Table T.14 lists the funding characteristics of the selected sites.

Data Collection

The Funding Case Studies were conducted concurrently with the Community
Case Studies, from November 1992 to March 1993. Immediately before data
collection began, all interviewers participated in a three-day training session that
included training for both the Funding Case Studies and the Community Case
Studies.

Teams of two researchers visited each site for approximately five days. Prior to
each site visit, district central office personnel were contacted and told what
documents the site visitors would need to review. On site, the researchers began
each visit by reviewing budget and enrollment records, and transcribing relevant
funding information onto a standard data collection form. Interviews were then
conducted with as many of the following individuals as possible at each site:
superintendent, district director of vocational education, finance officer, district
coordinators of special population programs, school principals, department

T-44 138 Technical Appendix



Volume V

generally do not have program-based budgets which would allow them to
disentangle the funding for specific programs.”® Nonetheless, as shown in
Figure 3.1, the results are revealing:

. Among those community colleges and technical institutes that do
serve JTPA and JOBS clients, the largest single source of funds for
the classroom instruction of these clients is the JTPA or JOBS
program; but

° For JTPA programs, much of the resources for classroom
instruction come from the educational institutions themselves,
largely in the form of regular state aid (but also from other aid,
including Perkins funds). For JOBS, however, this is not the case.

According to Bailis and Grubb, these data illustrate that “JTPA programs [at the
postsecondary level] are not wholly federal programs, as they are often viewed;
they are in fact federal-state partnerships because of the relatively large amounts
of state funding which they receive when JTPA and vocational programs
collaborate.”®!

A strong motive for referring JTPA and JOBS clients to public postsecondary
institutions is cost-shifting, and because their funding is driven by enrollment
figures, educational institutions have a special incentive to encourage such
referrals. While Alt found that these practices may help avoid unnecessary costs
and duplication of efforts, they also have a negative aspect: “JTPA and JOBS
administrators often have little knowledge about the content of the education
institutions’ programs and fail to set policy requiring specific course content.
Thus, coordination at the superficial level of referrals may go directly against
ensuring that clients obtain the services they need and that the services they do
get are of high quality.”

Remediation Programs. We have focused on the status of coordination between
two-year postsecondary institutions and JTPA and JOBS because JTPA is the
federal job training program that most often engages in joint planning with
vocational education institutions, and JOBS is a relatively new program that
requires a high level of cooperation with other employment training programs.
However, other providers of remediaticn, especially adult education programs,
also coordinate with two-year postsecondary institutions.

About one-fourth (27 percent) of two-year public postsecondary institutions
reported that they do not coordinate with providers of remedial education or
adult basic education other than JTPA or JOBS (see Appendix Table A-3.18). The
coordination that does take place in these institutions is mostly in the form of
referrals to or from other programs. Joint service delivery is not very common;
only 26 percent provide remediation jointly with other programs.

toz

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs 91


Volume V

Table A-3.15

Types of Services Provided to JTPA or JOBS Clients by Postsecondary
Institutions Providing Instruction or Service Funded by JTPA or JOBS

(Percent)

JTPA JOBS
Service All Institutions Institutions with All Institutions Institutions with
JTPA Services JOBS Services.
Support Services
Assessment 45 62 16 61
Counseling 46 64 16 61
Job placement 37 52 9 34
Job clubs or job
search 24 34 7 26
assistance 1
Instruction
On-the-job
training 9 B 2 6
contracts
Classroom
instruction 66 86 21 71
Institutions Providing JTPA. Institutions Providing JOBS
Classroom Instruction Classroom Instruction
Regular
classes 94 85
Special
classes 56. oF

Source: Omnibus Survey of Postsecondary Institutions

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

145

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Progrants


Volume V

Table 3.6
Funding of JTPA Programs in Regular Districts
Regular
Secondary
Districts
Percent of districts reporting students funded by JTPA 58
Mean amount of JTPA funds for all districts $19,866
Mean amount of JTPA funds for JTPA districts $108,124
Mean percent of district revenues for JTPA districts 13
Mean amount of Perkins funds for JTPA/ Perkins districts $155,812
Mean percent of district revenues for JTPA/Perkins 1.6
districts
Percent of JTPA districts using district funds for JTPA 20
services

Source: Omnibus Survey of Secondary School Districts, Version A

and dominated by JTPA funding, rather than being collaborative in the sense of
joint funding.”

Local Coordination in Vocational Districts

Collaboration between vocational districts and JTPA is more common than for
regular districts, but is still far from universal. Nearly three-fourths (71 percent)
of vocational districts report that they have JTPA programs, compared to 58
percent of regular districts (see Appendix Table A-3.10).

As would be expected, the JTPA services offered by vocational districts are a
larger part of the districts’ overall program than in regular districts. However,
they are small in comparison to the vocational districts’ overall enrollment.
Vocational districts with JTPA serve a mean number of 64 JTPA students

(5.8 percent of total enrollment compared to 41 students or 3.8 percent of
enrollment for regular districts). (See Appendix Table A-3.10.)

JTPA Services. In most other respects the patterns in regular and vocational
districts are similar. Summer employment is the most commoi service JTPA
provides in secondary vocational districts, even though it is less common here
than in regular districts (64 percent of vocational districts with JTPA services

84 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs

95



urth Class Special
edel Handlary



Klein, S., Hoachlander, E.G., Tebben, C., & Premo, M. (1993). State Allocation of Basic Grant Funds:
A Comparison of the Carl D. Perkins Acts of 1984 and 1990. Draft report prepared for the
National Assessment of Vocational Education. Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates.

Legum, S., Caldwell, N., Goksel, H., Haynes, J., Hynson, C. Rust, K., Blecher, N., & Dabbs, P. _
(1993). The 1990 High School Transcript Study Technical Report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.

Martindale, M., Chu, A., Ward, D., & Kraft, D. (1994, April). 1993 Surocy of Employers Methodology
Report. Draft report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education.
Rockville, MD: Westat.

Milne, A., Martindale, M. & Michie, J. (1993, September). Vocational Education in Communities.
Draft report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Rockville,
MD: Westat.

Shephard, J., & Malizio, A.G. (1992). Methodology Report for the 1990 National Postsecondary Student
Aid Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Sherman, D., & O'Leary, M. (1993). Correctional Educatien Survey Field Test (Draft Final Report).
Washington, DC: Pelavin Associates.

Smith, ].E., Garcia, S., & Malitz, G.S. (1990). Methodology Report for the National Postsecondary
Student Aid Study, 1987. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Tao, F., & Richard, G.V. (1993). Survey of Vocational Student Organizations, Final Report, Vol. 1.
Draft report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Arlington,
VA: Fu Associates.

Thorne, J., Burke, J., Ha, P., Rust, K., Marshall, R., Sickles, D., Caldwell, N., Hayward, B.J., &
Kolstad, A. (1989). 1987 High School Transcript Study Data File User's Manual. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Tuma, J. E. (1993, April). Patterns of Enrollment in Postsecondary Vocational and Academic Education.
Draft report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Berkeley,
CA: MPR Associates.

Technical Appendix T-51



Volume V

Table 1.1 (continued)
Perkins Basic Grant (Title II-C) F¥93 Allocations to Secondary and
Postsecondary Levels, and Shares to Secondary Level for FY92 and FY93
(n = 44 states)

Secondary Share
FY93 Allocations (percent)
Difference
States Secondary | Postsecondary | FY93 FY92 | in Percentages
North Dakota 1,989,635 1,101,922 64.4 648 -0.4
Ohio 27,324,325 5,504,680 83.2 82.2 10
Oklahoma 9,405,842 1,762,950 84.2 84.0 0.2
Oregon 3,906,532 3,892,756 50.1 50.3 0.2
Pennsylvania 25,930,664 11,043,328 70.1 71.0 0.9
Rhode Island 3,299,792 291,155 91.9 89.5 24
South Carolina 10,187,770 1,629,114 86.2 86.8 0.6
South Dakota 1,364,485 1,766,287 43.6 418 18
Tennessee 13,626,882 2,000,000 87.2 85.9 13
Texas 31,239,317 23,609,000 87.0 56.1 09
Utah 3,767,440 2,511,626 60.0 60.0 0.0
Vermont 2,454,315 613,581 80.0 79.8 0.2
Virginia 13,946,028 2,461,064 85.0 85.0 0.0
Washington _ _ _ _ -
West Virginia 4,585,637 1,419,375 764 77.2 08
Wisconsin 6,218,609 8,202,388 43.1 45.0 19
Wyoming, _ - - _ _
Total for states 414,078,502 251,998,532 62.2 619 0.3
shown

Source: State Finance Record Collection

As of FY93, eight states for which we have administrative data elected to allocate
15 percent or less of Title I-C funds to one sector or the other, thus qualifying for
a waiver of the federal formula for that sector. Two states provided 15 percent or
less to secondary education, and six states provided 15 percent or less to
postsecondary education. In the final year of the 1984 legislation there were also
eight states allocating 15 percent or less to one sector or the other, although only
three states had done so earlier (in 1987).” These findings suggest that the 1990
legislative provision waiving the within-state formula in low-allocation sectors
had little effect on state decisions, inasmuch as the number of states allocating a
small share to one sector or the other increased only during the years covered by
the 1984 legislation.

4 Allocation and Uses of Perkins Fiauis

15


Volume V

JTPA contribution to the overall budget is about the same as for secondary
institutions — JTPA represents about 3 percent of revenues.

The contributions of JTPA and Perkins to the average public two-year public
postsecondary institution are virtually the same (Table 3.9). On average, a
postsecondary institution that receives both Perkins and JTPA funds receives:
. $282,103 in JTPA funds.
. $282,960 in Perkins funds.

JOBS, however, is funded at a much lower level for the institutions that receive
both JOBS funds and Perkins funds:

. On average, these institutions (which tend to be larger than
institutions without JOBS programs) receive approximately
$190,000 in JOBS funds, or 1 percent of their total revenues.

. Perkins funds average over $300,000, or 3 percent of total revenues.
Table 3.9
Funding of JTPA and JOBS Prcgrams in Two-Year Postsecondary Institutions
JTPA JOBS
Percent of all institutions reported students funded 82 32
by program
Mean amount of program funds in institutions $282,103 $190,586
receiving both program funds and Perkins funds
Mean percent of institution revenues 2.9 1.2
Mean amount of Perkins funds in institutions $262,960 $305,848
receiving both program funds and Perkins funds
Mean percent of institution revenues 3.3 2.6

Source: Omnibus Survey of Postsecondary Institutions

The Omnibus Survey also asked postsecondary institutions to report the amount
of funding from various sources supporting JTPA and JOBS clients in classroom
instruction. As Bailis and Grubb point out in their analysis, these amounts “are
almost certainly estimates, since community colleges and technical institutes

90 Cuordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs



heads, counselors, and teachers. Students were interviewed informally in
conjunction with classroom visits.

The interviews focused on determining shifts in services, staff, and students, and
other impacts of funding changes. Specific issues covered included not only
quantitative changes, but also respondents’ impressions of the process
surrounding these changes. Topics included: persons (at state, district, and
school levels) involved in the changes; preparation for the changes in the form of
pre-service or in-service training; support structures provided for personnel
experiencing re-assignment; pressures brought to bear on unchanged funding
sources (general revenues as well as other targeted funds) and responses to those
pressures; and adaptation to lost (or gained) administrative and support
personnel.

The Funding Case Studies are summarized in Hoachlander et al. (1993).
NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBAL CASE STUDIES

Section 103 of the 1990 Perkins Act provides funds for 38 tribally run vocational
education programs. The National Assessment used case studies to collect
information on these programs.

Funding for the National Assessment permitted case study analysis of five
Native American Perkins-funded vocational education programs. Sites were
selected to represent the diversity of Perkins programs to the greatest extent
possible. Each selected site is either a single representative or one of two
representatives of potentially important program variables, such as location,
urbanicity, and educational level. As in most case study analyses, probability
sampling techniques were not used to select sites, and the case studies cannot be
viewed as statistically representative of other programs in those categories.

Sample Selection

To assist in selecting case studies, portions of each Perkins Tribal Vocational
Education Program graniee’s funding application, provided by the US.
Depariuient of Education’s Office of Vocational and Adult Education, were used
to classify the provrams according to the variables listed in Table T.15. Five sites
were then selected to reflect as much diversity as possible in terms of the
selection variables. The greatest emphasis was given to educational level of the
program, geographic region, urbanicity, and single or multiple tribe
participation.

Data Collection

To initiate each site visit, a member of the research staff contacted the director or
coordinator of the Perkins program to set a date for the visit. Only one program

Technical Appendix T-45,

199



Volume V

While agreeing on the importance of legislation and funding, the National
Alliance of Business also stresses that supercouncils function best with an
independent staff, strong local counterparts, and business involvement.

Predictable Problems

Even with these first steps in place, several problems can be predicted: concerns
about costs and funding, local community needs, worry about paperwork, and
opposition to performance standards.

Costs and funding issues. Inadequate resources and restrictions on their use are
often cited as barriers. But Grubb notes they can also serve as inducements to
cooperation because agencies with dwindling resources must join forces to serve
clients.69 Funding mechanisms such as cost-shifting and the availability of funds
set aside for coordination (like JTPA’s 8% set-aside funds) can also serve as
inducements to encourage cooperation.

Local community needs. A “one approach fits all” mentality will not produce
the results policymakers seek. Communities differ in size, complexity, local
politics, history and culture. Because communication may be simpler, and costs
lower, when fewer institutions need to coordinate, cooperation may be easier in
small communities than in large cities. In rural areas, community colleges or area
technical and vocational centers are often the only providers of education and
training, thereby forcing cooperation among employment preparation programs.
Larger communities, on the other hand, may comprise several distinct
submarkets and may be more likely to have potitically powerful providers.”

Local politics and personal relationships inevitably enter the picture. For
example, some providers may place an SDA under considerable political
pressure to direct JTPA resources their way.7! On the other hand, “the ethos that
all groups should be given a piece of the funding pie” also exists.7*

Performance standards. Many educational institutions have, in the past,
expressed concern about performance standards in job-training programs. Based
on the case studies it conducted, NCRVE reported that “[w]hen educational
institutions have shied away from performance contracts, JTPA administrators
have criticized them for being unwilling to take risks and to be held accountable
for performance. However, the case studies demonstrate that performance-based
contracts do not have to be a major barrier to coordination.””4

NCRVE further observed that “educational institutions have had to make
changes in order to meet performance requirements such as increasing their job
placement efforts. But with time and experience, educational institutions can
adapt to the demands of JTPA.”

108

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs 95


Grasso, J.F., & Shea, J.R. (1979). Vocational Education and Training: Impact on Youth. Carnegie
Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education.

Greenburg, M. (1992). Welfare Reform on a Budget: What's Happening in JCBS. Washington, DC:
Center for Law and Social Policy.

Griffin, LJ., & Alexander, K.L. (1978). Schooling and socioeconomic attainments: high school and
college influences. Anwerican Journal of Sociology, 54(2) 319-347.

Grissom, G.R., & McMurphy, S. (1986). College-Correctional Collaboration in the Treatment of Juvenile
Offenders: Evaluation of a Program Model at Six Sites. Philadelphia: University City Science
Center.

Grossman, G.M. (1990). Credentialling the “New Model” of Apprenticeship Training: Overcoming the
Paradox of Implementation. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Center on Education
and Training for Employment.

Grubb, W.N. (1984). The bandwagon once more: Vocational preparation for high-tech
occupations. Harvard Educational Review, 54, 429-451.

Grubb, W.N. (1989). Dropouts, spells of time, and credits in postsecondary education: Evidence
from longitudinal surveys. Economics of Education Revieww, 8 (1), 49-67.

Grubb, W.N. (1992a). Postsecondary vocational education and the sub-baccalaureate labor
market: New evidence on economic returns.Economics of Education Review, 11, 225-248.

Grubb, W.N. (1992b). Vertical “Ladders” for Education and Training . Paper prepared for the
Committee on Postsecondary Education and Training for the Workforce of the National
Academy of Sciences. University of California at Berkeley.

Grubb, W.N. (1993a). "The Economic Effects of Sub-Baccalaureate Education: Corrections and
Extensions.” Unpublished draft manuscript (November 1993), the University of
California at Berkeley.

Grubb, W.N. (1993b). The long-run effects of proprietary schools on wages and earnings:
Implications for federal policy. Edticational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(1), 17-33.

Grubb, W.N., (1993c). The varied economic returns to postsecondary education:
New evidence from the class of 1972. Journal of Human Resources, 28(2), 365-382.

Grubb, W.N. (1994a). "The Long-Run Effects of Proprietary Schools: Corrections.” (Submitted to
Education Evaluation and Policy Aualysis.) University of California at Berkeley.

Grubb, W.N. (1994b). “Postsecondary Education and the Sub-Baccalaureate Labor Market:
Corrections and Extensions.” (Submitted to Economies of Education Review.) University of
California at Berkeley.

Grubb, W.N. (1994¢). "The Returns to Education and Training in the Sub-Baccalaureate Labor
Market: Evidence from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.” Unpublished
manuscript, the University of California at Berkeley.

Grubb, W.N., Brown, C., Kaufman, P., & Lederer, J. (1989), Inmovation Versus Turf: Coordination
Between Vocational Education and Job Training Partnership Act Programs. Berkeley, CA:
National Center for Research in Vocational Education.7) } 3

RB National As:

ment of Vocational Education: Final Report lo Congress



TECHNICAL APPENDIX REFERENCES

Caldwell, N., Goksel, H., Haynes, J., Hynson, C., Rust, K., Blecher, N., Legum, S., & Dabbs, P.
(1993). The 1990 High School Transcript Strdy Data File User's Manual. Washington; DC:
USS. Department of Education.

Chaney, B. (1994). 1993 Follozoup Surueys: National Assessment of Vocational Education Programs,

Survey Report. Draft report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational
Education. Rockville, MD: Westat.

Chaney, B., with Branden, L. (1993, August). State and Local Onmibus Surveys, National Assessment
of Vocational Education Programs: Survey Report. Draft report prepared for the National
Assessment of Vocational Education. Rockville, MD: Westat.

Choy, S.P., Henke, R.
United Stat
Education.

., Alt, M.N., Medrich, E.A., & Bobbitt, S.A. (1993). Schools and Staffing in the
Statistical Profile, 1990-91. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Davis, C., & Sonnenberg, B. (Eds.) (1993). Programs and Plans of tle National Center for Education
Statistics, 1993 Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Gifford, A., Hoachlander, E. G., & Tuma, J. E. (1989, February). The Secondary School Taxonomy

Final Report. Report prepared for the 1989 National Assessment of Vocational Education.
Berkelev, CA: MPR Associates.

Heaviside, S., Carey, N., & Farris, E. (1993), Public Secondary School Teacher Survey on Vocational
Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics.

Hoachlander, E.G. (1992). Participation iu Secondary Vocational Education, 1982-87. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Hoachlander, E.G., von Glatz, A., Gutmann, B., Heid, C., Jacobson, L.S., Matlof, J., Muraskin, L.,
W., & Wabnick, R. (1993, September). Funding Vocational Education: Selected Case
Studies. Draft report prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education.
Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates.

A, (1993). National Assessment of Vocational Education: American Indian Programs. Berkeley,
CA: MPR Associates

Ingels, SJ., Dowd, K.L.,Baldridge, J.D., Stipe, J-L., Bartot, V-H., Frankei, M.R., Owings, ).E., Quinn,
P. (1993). National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 Second Follow-up: Studeut
Component Data File User's Manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.

Jones, C., Knight, $., Butz, M., Crawford, J., Stephenson, B., Fetters, W.B., & Takai, R. (1983). High
School and Beyoud Transcripts Survey (1982) Data File User's Manual. Washington, DC: US.
Depi rtment of Education.

Kaufman, $., & Huang, H. (1993), 1990-91 Schools aud Staffing Survey: Sample Design and
Estimation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

T-

50 Technical Appendix
BEST COPY CVAILARIF 254



Volume V

project—Cumberland/Salem—used a common data system, coordinated
testing, moved the Career Information Delivery System from the ES office
into the local high school teen center, coordinated employer marketing
programs, and held regional staff meetings to discuss program needs and
activities. Credit for a successful model is given to staff who saw the need
to provide better service and were willing to work toward common goals.

. All public ES, Unemployment Insurance, and job training services in
North Dakota are delivered from Job Service local offices using a one-stop
system of employment and training programs. An intake unit takes
applications for work, unemployment insurance, and job training
programs. The placement unit takes job orders and maintains job coniacts
with employers. An assessment unit handles JTPA activities, counseling,
Job Corps recruitment and screening. The outcomes of this
intake/placement/assessment model include streamlined service delivery
to clients, decreased waiting time, more efficient use of staff, and
employer contact with the same placement interviewer over time.

. California has implemented a variety of cooperative ventures. Its most
successful has been based on industry-focused services.5 The Aerospace
Network is a joint venture of the Employment Development Department,
aerospace employers, JTPA, Private Industry Councils, vocational
education, and training agencies. The main purpose of the Network is “to
provide the capacity to effectively respond to the cyclical nature of
employment trends in the defense industry — finding workers for vacant
jobs and jobs for displaced workers.” Based on its success with the
aerospace industry, the model has been expanded to other industries:
electronics, hospitality, and finance and banking.

5 Little, A.R. (1990), Model offices in model communities. Perspective: Essays and Revie

Issues in Employment Security and Employment and Training Programs, 6, 107-113.

© Little (1990), p. 110.

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs A-11



Volume V

Overlap Among Programs

Our review of the statutory requirements for the programs assessed in this
chapter did find many areas of potential overlap, especially in groups served and
services provided. Two tables indicate specifically which target groups

(Table 3.2) and services (Table 3.3) are covered by more than one of the programs
specified in the Perkins mandate for the National Assessment.

As shown in Table 3.2, most of the programs target a myriad of groups. Perkins
and JTPA are the most far-reaching: Perkins and JTPA II-A (Adult Training
Program) each targets two different populations (12 groups) and JTPA-C (Youth
Training Program) targets 11 groups. Many of the target populations do overlap:

. All but two of the programs target youth.
. All but two of the programs also serve adults.
. The economically disadvantaged, persons with disabilities, and

school dropouts are also popular target groups.

With the exception of supported employment (offered only by vocational
rehabilitation), all of the different types of services in these programs are offered
by more than one program (see Table 3.3). Classroom vocational instruction,
remedial and basic education, and job placement and referral are among the
services that most commonly overlap. JTPA’s services overlap with virtually all
of the other programs (supported employment under vocational rehabilitation is
the only exception), and JOBS also offers quite a few overlapping services.
Perkins offers eight different types of services, many also provided by two or
more of the other programs.

When these two comparison tables (Tables 3.2 and 3.3) are considered together,
they indicate that these programs often do offer the same services to the same
target groups. For example, Perkins overlaps with virtually all of the other
programs because Perkins funds can be used for just about any kind of
educational service or activity related to vocational programs in secondary or
two-year postsecondary institutions. Most vocational programs get some Perkins
funds; those with the highest concentrations of special population students
receive the most money.

Virtually all of the other programs included in this analysis also provide some
services to a given target group that overlap with another program’s service
delivery.

58 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs

ese)


Volume V

Avoiding Unnecessary Competition

Most advocates of coordination in public programs argue that competition
among programs is wasteful and inefficient. For example, if a community-based
organization and community college are competing for a JTPA contract, they
might refuse to share information or participate in joint planning for fear of
giving the opponent an edge in the competition. With cooperation rather than
competition, a joint program serving a larger and more varied group of clients
might have been possible.

On the other hand, if a provider gets JTPA contracts for a number of years
without competing for them, the application process may become pro forma.
Competition can generate better programs by stimulating providers’ efforts to
raise quality or lower costs in order to prevail over competitors.

Grubb and associates point out that competition can be destructive if education
and training programs win contracts on the basis of political power, irrational
selection processes, custom, or other irrelevant criteria, rather than on the basis of
effectiveness or cost. In their research, they found isolated instances of

destructive competition, primarily caused by local interest group politics, but no
widespread pattern.

Improving Effectiveness

Eliminating duplication and avoiding competition may improve efficiency. But
policymakers have been criticized for focusing too narrowly on efficiency and
neglecting the issue of effectiveness.

The former Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services
criticized the job training system harshly as “highly fragmented, characterized by
multiple programs with limited goals offering services that are often duplicative,
lacking in accountability, and inattentive to long-term client needs,”?! and there
is general agreement that:

° Clients may spend a great deal of time locating service sites, filling
out multiple forms, and taking repetitive tests.

. Service providers may not have access to information that would
help them to better serve participants, such as the amount and
success of any previous training.

° Programs may not offer needed support services such as case
management, child care, and stipends, and providers may not help
clients obtain services offered by other programs.

Pala
60

o4 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal fob-Training Programs



Gamoran, A. (1994). The Impact of Academic Coursework on Labor Market Outcomes for Youth Wha Da
Not Attend College: A Research Review. Paper prepared for the National Assessment of
Vocational Education. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Consortium for Policy
Research on Education.

Ganzglass, E., & Simon, M. (1993). State Initiatives on Industry-Based Skill Standards and Credentials.
Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association.

Gendron, D., & Cavan, J. (1988, April). Inmate Education: The Virginia Model. Paper presented at
the Conference of the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, Las
Vegas, NV.

General Accounting Office (1990). Training Strategies: Preparing Noncollege Youth for Employnitent in
the US, and Foreign Countries (GAO/HRD-90-88). Washington, DC: Author.

General Accounting Office (1991). Transition From Sclool to Wark: Linking Education and Worksite
Training (GAO/HRD-91-105). \Vashington, DC: Author.

General Accounting Office (1993a). Federal Prisons: Inmate and Staff Views on Education aud Work
Training Programs. Washington, DC: Author.

General Accounting Office (1998b). Transition Frou School to Work: States Are Developing New
Strategies to Prepare Students for Jobs (GAQ/HRD-93-139). Washington, DC: Author.

General Accounting Office (1993c). Vocational Education: Status in School Year 1990-91 aud Early
Signs of Change at the Secondary Level (GAO/HRD-93-71). Washington, DC: Author.

General Accounting Office (1993d). Vocational Education: Status in 2-Year Colleges in 1990-91 and

Early Signs of Change (GAO/HRD-93-89). Washington, DC: Author.

General Accounting Office (1993e). “Occupational Skil! Standards--Experience Shows Industry
Involvement to Be Key," testimony of Linda G. Morra, Director, Education and
Employment Issues, Human Resources Division, General Accounting Office (T-HRD-93-
23).

General Accounting Office (19938). Multiple Employment Programs: Natioual Employment Training
Strategy Needed. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Education, Labor, and Health
and Human Services, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate (GAO/T-HRD-93-27).
Washington, DC: Author.

Ghazalah, ILA. (1987). “Long Term Follow-up of Vocational Education Graduates: A Study Based
on Federal Income Tax Data.” Unpublished manuscript. Athens, OH: Ohio University,
Department of Economics.

Ghazalah, |.A. (1991). 1979 Vocational Education Graduates in L986. Athens, OH: Ohio University,
Department of Economies.

Goldsmith, DJ., Lewis, L.H., Lakes, R.D., & Pritchard, A.M. (1989). It's Our Shop, Too: A Study of
Students in Nontraditional Occupations in Connecticut's Vocational-Technical Schools.
Hartford, CT: Vocational Equity Research, Training and Evaluation Center.

Goodwin, D. (1989). National Assessment of Vocational Education, Final Report, Vol. 1V, Postsecondary
Vocational Education, Washington, DC; U.S. Department of Education.

wi2

National Assessment of Vocational Cilication: Pinot Report to Congress R7



Volume V

population students has led districts to support fewer schools than they would
otherwise have supported.

In FY93, 71 percent of regular school districts with individual grants (i.e., those
not in consortia) offered at least some services on a district-wide basis (Table 1.4).
This finding is important because it means that some funds may not be subject to
the within-district allocation guidance in the legislation. Of course, district-wide
services (such as counseling, or the cost of a special needs coordinator) may be
used more heavily by some schools than by others, even when no funds or
personnel slots are explicitly suballocated. Districts may not consider these
activities within-district transfers, however, and may not view their decisions
about where district-wide staff offer their services, for example, as subject to the
within-district concentration rules.

Table 1.4
Within-District Targeting Practices for Perkins Title I-C Funds:
Districts With Individual Grants and Districts in Consortia, FY93

Percent Using Practice
Districts With
Individual Districts in

District Targeting Practice Grants Consortia
Provides some district-wide or 71 85

consortium-wide services
Allocates within district (to programs 86 67

and/or schools)
Allocates to specific programs 82 67

Source: 1993 Followup Survey of School Districts

Most schoo! districts with individual g rants (86%) do target Perkins H-C funds to
particular schools, programs, or both. Targeting to particular programs is the
more popular option; 82 percent of the districts that target funds select this
approach. Districts that target funds indicate several important determinants of
their within-district Perkins allocations (Table 1.5), These include a school or
program's need f6r funds (78% of districts), its number or proportion of
disadvantaged students (77%), and its overall enrollment (71%). The “size and
scope” of programs appear slightly less important, cited by 67 percent of the

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds

20


CAT

suonnynsuy Arepuosasisog jo aamg dnmoyjog 661 :22IN0S

‘suuvs8oid potaysi8oa Feu} YIM suo ASU A1epuodassod Jo %,¢Z oy] UO paseg ore s[L}O] q

ssurei8ord daid-yoay yam suoTNyysur K1epuoras}sod yo +y,¢g aly UO paseg aie sa8vjuadIag y

9S79'S L66r'’sl 69 00S gL It 096 09 99L 189M
8'60S'r S67'b1 Ze O@r FS v9 les v9 FOL UNS
ogss'r | L6zs‘0z TP ee 89 so OF or GGL [enjusd
CLI? C60’ Ol 6Cr Orel 68 768 4 O28 JSPOON
UoIBay
8Czs'8 €2Ol'9r 9% Scr Vs 6RS 6F 676 ce 108 AIO 10 0900'S
6'668'L LYOL'E se COP eo 60S ce S$ es VLZ 666'F-000'C
zs00'e Fols'9 C9 Ve FS FOP el CLL 69 £69 ON0'T UeUR S897]
juawjjorua Arepuoras} so,
o1oy?e eSove eel ole wel CLE Oe FLO eer £69 1yIO.
Pz99'C $088 9L S'6 Oe res OST fol ver 769 OININSUT YA}-TEUOLIOA,
O292'8 GGte'er 4 OLF img oes 9% Oe6 oe OLL antsuayardwoD
ads} uoynqnsuy
Uzez’8 EC9Lv'9S (44 ler LE GCS L938 Te Vsé OL
sonia | aeuysg | soa | seunsg| soma | aewnsq] sous | ayumsg| soe | aeunsg
prepuris piepuris prepuris prepueys paepuris
g£6-266T payeuray are oyM syuapnys [eoruypay | €6-Z661 UT Apoamp | epmdiaind swapese DISHL9}DLIVY? JDHISIC]
ww, suerZ01d syuapnys daid-yoay /{euoyednos0 spunj yuawenoidun pur [euoTed0A
diysaonuaidde Jo quaosad Uva) payrenb wer80id suryiog jo vonesZayut

paraysi3ax ‘TeuLIoy
ur uononysut
papiaoid
Jaqumu [ej],

Sunownye uy
wiajqord ajerapow
Jo snolias e Suraey

Sunjiodaz yuadieg

Sutajazar juaoag

ayy Bujowoid
uo Paya aATIsod
& pey Py sUD}Eg

661 ap yet
Sunrodar yuaoieg

suoynyysuy Arepuosas}sog wor eyeq Aaamg dnmojjog 10j s1011g prepueys pa}22[2S
OL PIL

-4

t-
=

Technical Appendix

T-18


Volume V

Figure 3.1
Resources for Postsecondary Joint Classroom Instruction Programs
With JTPA/JOBS

JTPA

4%

39%

JTPA/JOBS

Tuition

Reg, State Aid

Susiness

O
O
a

Other

52%

Source: Omnibus Survey of Postsecondary Institutions

tou

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal fob-Training Programs



Volume V

Figure 1.1 (continued)
Perkins Title H-C Allocation Decisions and Expenditures in
Eight School Districts

large metro area, growing
population, 4,261
students in 9-12, 2 high
schools, 90% minority,
50% qualify for
free / reduced price lunch
at high schools, 6-7%
special education

School District Methods for Within-District FY93 II-C Grant Sizes and
Characteristics I-C Allocation Expenditures.
Small poor district near _ | Three quarters of funds go to $101,900

school with the greatest
proportion of special needs
students, although the two
schools are fairly similar, The
school receiving the funds has
more vocational programs,
however. Within the school,
programs needing equipment
receive support. The rest of the
funds are retained for district-
wide staff and other needs.

1) $35,000 computers and CAD software
for construction graphics drafting,
program.

') $15,000 trave« for vocational student
organizations.
3) $40,000 salaries: special populations
coordinator, assessment clerk for data
collection.
4) Small amounts for teacher inservice on
vocational /academic integration.

Large, urban district, high
percentage special needs
students, declining,
enrollment; 4
comprehensive high
schools, 5 magnet high
schools, district feeds to 3
area schools in county.

No information available on
within-district allocations, Under
court-ordered desegregation, the
bulk of funds are transferred toa
county area school district
originally designed to serve
special ed students. Funds are
used for the general support of
city students at three area schools
in that district,

$1,784, 000

1) $1,472,000 transferred to area school
district to support full-day tuition and
supplemental services (counseling,
supplemental and resource teachers,
interpreters, special ed teachers) for 396
special! population students from district.
$71,000 equipment for vocational
assessment system, basic skills lab, support
staff.

3) $68,000 for guidance /counseling/
placement services.

4) $32,000 for program improvement

Medium sized suburban
district in fast growing,
county; 6 comprehensive
high schools, 13,261
students in 9-12,
minority.

Funds allocated to schools
programs based on “need
determined by school requests to
district staff. An additional
consideration has been added
with the 1990 legislation: the 2
schools with highest numbers of
free lunch and below C students
received more funds in FY92
{each had about 1/3 of resources),
the schools with greatest numbers.
of disabled received more funds
in FY93 (about 28 percent of
resources), and the school with
more LEP students will re
more funds next year (it r
almost no funds in FY9?

$249,700

1) $63,000, 2.5 FTE special ed salaries
(teaching assistant, part costs of 6 jab
coaches — one for each school — located at
work sites, part of work experience
specialist).

2) $17,000 aide to auto body program at
one school.

3) $24,700 inservice, workshops for
vocational teachers across district.

4) $48,000 upgrading automotive mechanic
program atone school.

5) $70,000 equipment and other expenses
for expanding technology education at one
high school.

6) $26,000 district vocational assessment
program.

Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds


Volume V

development of regulations, they recommend that the negotiated rulemaking
process be reconsidered. The procedure added little to the development of
Perkins regulations, and they argue that it seems most appropriate to regulatory
agencies where there are essentially opposing parties to an issue and the areas of
compromise are clear. Under these circumstances opposing parties might agree
to a compromise that avoids costly litigation (e.g., industry and government
might agree to certain levels of auto emissions by a certain date). Interviewees
also argue that the incentives within the executive branch should be changed to
encourage prompt issuance of regulations.

With respect to review of state plans, interviewees recognize the need to develop
a clear set of quality indicators that are distributed to states well in advance of
their state plan submissions. They now recognize that the quality review process
takes considerably greater effort per state than previous state plan reviews and
they must adjust accordingly.

LOCAL VIEWS OF STATE PERFORMANCE, 1990-1993

Given federal and state administrative directions, how do localities view the
support their states provide to assist them in implementing the 1990 Act? At the
secondary level, district vocational administrators provide an alternative
perspective on the role of state vocational administration (Table 2.10).!! They
indicate that state support for activities related to the Perkins Act increased
considerably between 1990 and 1993. Viewpoints differ, however, based on
whether the districts received Perkins funds and among administrators in
different regions of the country.

Overall, 70 percent or more of the district vocational administrators reported
substantial increases in state support for local activities by 1993, including
development of integrated vocational-academic programs, development of tech-
prep programs, vocational program assessment, and guidance on providing
equal access to vocational programs and services. Only in the area of
development of “all aspects of the industry” curricula was increased state
support reported by fewer than 70 percent of local officials, but even on this topic
62 percent reported an increase between 1990 and 1993. Administrators in
vocational districts generally indicated greater increases in state support than did
administrators in regular districts, although both sets of administrators said that
state support increased.

These 1993 data from district administrators show a remarkable change in local
assessment of state support compared to earlier data. When asked in 1992 to
indicate the direction and extent of change in state support for the same set of
activities between 1990-91 and 1991-92, far fewer local administrators indicated
that state support had increased.'2 For example, only 45 percent of regular
district administrators and 62 percent of vocational district administrators
indicated that state support for vocational-academic integration increased over

The State Administration of the Perkins Act 43

a
czy


Volume V

JTPA/JOBS Services. As discussed above, the most common form of
postsecondary coordination is for JTPA and JOBS to subcontract with community
colleges and technical institutes to provide various services. In fact, this practice
is quite common for JTPA, but much less frequent for JOBS (see Table 3.8):

. More than three-quarters (82%) of the two-year public
postsecondary institutions surveyed provide services to JTPA.

. One-third (32%) provide services to JOBS clients.

Despite the'extent of collaborative planning, the enrollment contributed by JTPA
and JOBS to postsecondary vocational educational institutes is relatively small
compared to overall enrollments (based on “head counts,” not full-time
equivalency). Institutions with a JTPA program reported that the average

aumber of JTPA students enrolled was 141, or 7 percent of total enrollment (see
Table 3.8).

Table 3.8
Enrollment of JTPA and JOBS “rograms in Two-Year
Public Postsecondary Institutions

JIPA JOBS
Percent of all institutions reporting students funded 82 32
by program
Mean number of students receiving services funded 141 121
by program’
Mean percent of institution enrollment@ 7 3

4 Calculations include only those institutions that reported at least one JTPA/JOBS student
during 1991-92.

Source: Omnibus Survey of Postsecondary Institutions

Institutions with JOBS programs tend to have slightly higher overall enrollments
{6,300 compared to 5,200 for the average institution with JTPA services, and 5,800
for all two-year institutions). However, JOBS enrollments are lower, both in
absolute numbers and as a proportion of total enrollment.

99

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs

838



Volume V

with concentrations of special needs students was used exclusively. If some
districts with multiple schools did target by program exclusively, however, it
could result in funds flowing to programs in schools with both large and
small concentrations of special needs students. This would not appear to be
the intent of the Act.

Moreover, targeting to programs could serve as an incentive to enroll special
population students in the programs that receive funds, which may or may
not be in their best educational interests. Congress should consider the
merits of targeting funds to sites but not to programs.

(3) Specifying the within-district process of allocating funds to individual

schools (or to programs in one-school districts and postsecondary
institutions). This may entail a formula or a set of conditions that should be
met. As we have already noted, districts with multiple schools are using
different ways of suballocating to individual schools and are suballocating
varying percentages of their basic grant funds. (Comparable program-level
suballocation information in one-schoo! districts and postsecondary institutions
is not currently available.) Several areas warrant additional direction:

¢ Do the within-district allocation requirements extend to all basic
grant funds, including personnel slots as well as funds for
purchases? If so, what procedures should districts use to allocate
slots, staff time, or other non-money resources?

e¢ Should there be formulas or rules for extent of concentration — that is,
how should districts decide when funds are sufficiently concentrated?

¢ How should special populations be counted in suballocations —
should all characteristics count equally,.for example? Are
allocations based on absolute numbers or proportions equally
desirable?

¢ Should there be opportunities, over time, to shift some funds
among schools independent of their concentrations of special
populations, or to favor different special population considerations
at different times (¢.g., special education students one year, LEP
students the next)?

(4) Clarifying the scope of grantee responsibility for support services for

special populations. In one form or another, provisions mandating support
services have now been law for a decade, yet there continues to be debate
over whether these are directions for the use of basic grant funds or service
mandates. In the 1990 Act, the support service requirements were extended to
postsecondary grant recipients as well. There is clearly a need for Congress
to state explicitly whether these requirements extend beyond the use of
Title H-C funds.

26

3 2 Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds



Perkins-funded programs are especially rare in jails; for this reason, the National
Assessment ¢ Vocational Education did not include the jail survey in the
analyses use. in this report, and that survey is not discussed here.

The surveys collected 1991-92 information on the types of educational programs
offered at correctional institutions; the number of inmates who took part in these
programs; staffing and financial resources used to provide education (including
vocational education); and the funding sources used to provide correctional
education.

The questionnaires were pilot tested at nine sites in May 1992, before the
National Assessment survey questions had been added. The surveys were then
modified, and National Assessment questions added. These questions were
reviewed by state correctional education agency directors in 3-4 states prior to
their inclusion in the final survey instruments.

To address concerns that the surveys were too long, the instruments were
reformatted into “short” and “long” versions. The long version is 50 percent
longer than the short version, but both versions collect data ona set of core
questions needed for the National Assessment.

Surveys were sent to respondents in March 1993, and were returned through
June 1993. Reminder postcards were sent to all sites one week after initial survey
mailout, and telephone calls were made one week later to determine if the survey
forms had been received and if the respondent had any questions. A second copy
of the survey was sent and additional phone calls made as necessary.

Response Rates

The overall response rate to the Survey of State Adult Correctional Education
Agencies was 84 percent (76% for the long version, 92% for the short version).
The overall response rate to the Survey of State Juvenile Correctional Education
Agencies was 75 percent (72% for the long version, 77% for the short version).

Agencies that did not respond to the surveys tended to be from smaller states.
These smaller states often did not keep centralized data and needed to contact
individual facilities (usually two or three in a state) to collect information. In
contrast, most larger states had already collected the data needed to complete the
survey ata central office.

NCES used the Correctional Education Survey as a pretest to determine what
information on correctional education is available from surveyed respondents.
Further information on these surveys and the field test results is available in
Sherman and O'Leary (1993).

26 Techutical Appendix



Volume V

ct

saojariq Arepuosasysog pue Arepuodag ayig jo shaaang snquwg, :sa2zn0g

8 €S eh 6P ge 9 oF 1S Suyuueyd yuiof
zw 1g ve oe 82 9% 1S 99 sujd ayeys Surzeys
oe ob 61 6L 1% 6L 43 OF swei8oid aye3s yo Sutpuny jurof
saayynumuosqns
A 4) €S ss oF @s 6S tL ‘saay}wUutod uo diysraquiaw jU0{
3J21S ‘SaaS qns
1S £g 09 Sb Lb oF BS 09 jo sBunjaauu spn Bay
8 9 AR val 6L ZL €l 6 suonaeiayuT ON
ab 6b zs oF €€ ta zs 9 Buruueyd yu10f
. saroua8y Arepuosasysog
8¢ ce €€ €€ x4 ¥ 09 92 sue|d ayvjs Sureys
se ZA ze 0z 9% ZA oP OF sweiZoid ajejs yo Surpuny juro{
saaynunEdsqns
1s 6e 9 0s 9S oF 69 el ‘saannumutod uo diyssaquiawt yu}of
jj81s ‘saaqquWosqns
Le os 09 os w 7 “9 69 jo s8unaaw sn Bay
4% 0z gt 0z Iz st 9 Z SUON>VII}Ut ON
saruasy Arepuodag
wersory jueur ODION, BOIAIAS (261 Jo sweifoig | uonvonpy (val)
saofdadv | -dojaaaq quaut PV ‘qeyay) | diysaoy | oiseg 3jnpy. fpuno5
onWOU0D - Koydurg uone) -uaiddy “pl00D uonariajuy jo addy.
ayes -Trqeuay Sutures
TeUOT]LOOA, qof aes
sumeizorg

Quac1ag) saua8y 23e1¢g Jo suOTjORI9}UY

LE-V Pak

=
&
&
&
=
&
3
<5
=
3
3
&
z
8
§
3
w
g
s
8
ce
s
=
ES
oO

A-26



Volume V

Table 1.5
Criteria in Within-District Targeting of Perkins Title I1-C Funds: School
Districts With Individual Grants, FY93

Percent of Districts
Criteria Using the Criterion
Need for program improvement funds 78
Number (or proportion) of special population 77
students
Number (or proportion) of students in school 71
Size and scope of vocational program(s) 67
Existence of courses that integrate academic and 56
vocational curricula
Need to maintain continuity of funding 44
Other 8

Source: 1993 Followup Survey of School Districts

districts that target funds. Considerations that are important to fewer districts
include the existence of courses or programs that integrate academic and
vocational curricula (56%), and the need to maintain continuity of funding (44%).
As noted earlier, the Perkins Act specifies that in allocating funds grant recipients
must “give priority. . to sites or programs that serve the highest concentrations
of. . special populations.” 14 These data suggest that, while most districts use the
location of special populations as a criterion in targeting, it is just one among
several criteria that are often used. About one-fifth of districts (23% of the 86% of
districts that target) seem not to be in compliance with this provision of the law.

Although a substantial percentage of districts with multiple schools report that
they target to only some of the schools in their districts, there is little evidence
that the 1990 Act's guidance on criteria for funds targeting has affected the
number of schools receiving support. Fifty-seven percent of the districts with
multiple schools report that they target particular schools for receipt of Perkins
Title II-C funds.!5 However, these districts report that 64 percent of their high
schools received support in FY93, exactly the same percentage of schools as
received support in FY91, the final year of the 1984 legislation. The new rules do
not seem to have limited the number of schools with Perkins support.

10 Allocation and Uses of Perkins Funds



Volume V

The actual programs are voluntarily operated by employers, employee
associations, or management and labor groups, although DOL provides technical
training to program sponsors. Costs are shared by the apprentice, who usually
receives reduced earnings, and the employer, who pays for training costs. These
are traditional apprenticeship programs, often involving labor unions and often
found in the construction trades. They are different in important respects from
the new youth apprenticeship programs described in Volume III, Chapter 6.

Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Rehabilitation Services
Administration, Department of Education supports programs of vocational
rehabilitation and independent living for individuals with disabilities in order to
maximize their employment, independence, and integration into the workplace
and the community. Title [ provides vocational rehabilitation services to persons
with disabilities so they may engage in gainful employment. Services include
vocational counseling, vocational training, assistive devices, interpreter services,
reader services, supported employment services, and job placement. State
vocational rehabilitation counselors provide some services directly to
participants and arrange for other services from providers in the community.

The Wagner-Peyser Act establishes an Employment Service (ES) to provide job-
placement services without charge to jobseekers and employers. All employers
seeking workers and persons legally authorized to work in the United States are
eligible, with priority given to veterans, especially veterans with disabilities.
States are required to provide job counseling for persons with disabilities, and
may provide specialized assistance to youth aged 16 to 22, women, older
workers, rural residents, and the economically disadvantaged.

The Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor,
administers a nationwide federal-state network of local ES offices funded
through grant agreements with each state. ETA provides general direction,
funding, and oversight as well as technical assistance in test development and
occupational analysis. Federal law requires states to affiliate with the ES in
delivering employment services — such as labor exchanges and job matching
programs — to residents.

The agencies that actually provide the services are the State Employment
Services or State Job Services through almost 2,000 local Employment Service (or
Job Service) offices. ES programs include labor market exchange to assist workers
in finding jobs and employers in filling job openings; job counseling, testing, and
referral; work test requirements of the state unemployment insurance system;
services for handicapped persons; migrant seasonal farm workers’ programs;
and priority services to veterans.

The Job Opportunity and Basic Skills (JOBS) program is a welfare-to-work
program that has become a high priority for the federal government, with
interdepartmental task forces working to coordinate the efforts of the

4 Coordinating Vocational Education and Feder! Job-Training Programs

65


NAVE National Assessment of Vocational Education

NCCVSO National Coordinating Council for Vocational Student
Organizations

NCES National Center for Education Statistics

NCRVE National Center for Research in Vocational Education

NELS National Education Longitudinal Study

NGA National Governors’ Association

NLS72 National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of
1972

NLSY National Longitudinal Study of Youth

NLTS National Longitudinal Transition Study

NOCTI National Occupational Competency Testing Institute

NPSAS National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

NYFEA National Young Farmer Education Association

OERI Office of Ed acational Research and Improvement

OVAE Office of Vocational and Adult Education

PAS National Postsecondary Agricultural Student
Organization

PIC Private Industry Council

PT Principles of Technology

QED Quality Education Data

RFP Request for Proposal

SASS Schools and Staffing Survey

SAT Scholastic Aptitude Test

National Assessment of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress ACB

229



Volume V

Table A-3.3
Secondary State Agency Allocation Methods for JTPA 8% Set-Aside Funds

Allocation Method Percent of Secondary
State Agencies
Formula 13
REP or other discretionary mean 43
Combination of formula and discretion 26
Other 19

NOTE: Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.

Source: Omnibus Secondary State Survey

Table A-3.4
States With a State Human Resource Investment Council (SHRIC), 1993

Has or Will Have a State Human Resources Percent of Secondary | Number of Secondary
Investment Council State Agencies State Agencies*

Yes, have one now 16 8

No, but will have one 12 6

No, do not and will not have one 71 36

Don't know 2 1

4Of the 14 states having a SHRIC, 6 states (40%) reported having Perkins programs under SHRIC

jurisdiction.

NOTE; Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.

Source: 1993 Followup Survey for State Directors of Secondary Vocational Education

@
134

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Progranis

A-23



Volume V

Appendix 3-A

Perkins Amendments Coordination Provisions and Responses

Interdepartmental Task Force on Vocational Education and Related Programs.
After enactment of the Perkins amendments, the Department of Education's
Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) reviewed existing
interdepartmental activities and determined that all of the mandates specified in
the legislation were already being implemented. Given the staffing shortage of
the office, therefore, OVAE elected not to convene a new task force. The
interdepartmental activities addressing this mandate were:

An interdepartmental conference (Making the Connection:
Coordinating Education and Training for a Skilled Workforce)
sponsored by OVAE, HHS, and DOL for state leaders.
Representatives from adult education, vocational education, DOL
job-training programs, and HHS job-training programs spoke about
“commonalities and differences among programs anc coordination
challenges and opportunities"!

A conference jointly sponsored by OVAE and ED's Office for
Special and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) designed to improve
coordination and build “effective linkages between educational
programs that serve Americans with disabilities"?

Ongoing coordination with HHS in accordance with the JOBS
legislation.

A number of ED ongoing groups with the purpose of fostering
coordination (e.g., the Coordination Committee for Research in
Vocational Education and Adult Education, which is composed of
representatives of several ED agencies and meets bimonthly to
coordinate efforts).

1

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education (1991). Making the

Connection: Coordinating Education and Training for a Skilled Workforce, Conference proceedings,
July 8-10, 1991.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education and Office of Special

Education and Rehabilitative Services. Building Effective Program Linkages -- To Establish a
Coordinated System of Lifelong Learning for Adults With Disabilities, Conference proceedings,

undated.

44
its

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Trainiug Programs A?


Volume V

Appendix 3-B
Model One-Stop Centers, Coordination of Services, and Co-Location

. The Youth Employment Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, uses staff
from six youth employment agencies and school personnel in a centrally
located local high school where all programs could be accessed.! Youth
are guided through the referral process by someone who has assessed the
youth's needs and is familiar with the eligibility criteria and existing
capacity of the programs. Those familiar with the program say its success
is due to its use of all community resources, including those that receive
funds from sources outside the JTPA network. The Youth Employment
Center was designed to maintain flexibility of diverse community
resources, which a federally mandated program might hinder.

. In lowa, the Work Force Development Council is working to create one-
stop service centers and local boards to run them. The centers will offer
outreach, intake and eligibility assessment, occupational and career
counseling, job placement and labor market information, and referral to
other service providers. Programs sponsored by JTPA, ES, Promise Jobs (a
state program), and Vocational Rehabilitation are expected to co-locate in
pilot centers during the current fiscal year. Plans also call for local
community colleges and community action agencies to work closely with
these centers. Where practical, the Work Force Investment Program
projects, lowa Conservation Corps, displaced homemaker programs, and
others will also work with the centers.

To support this streamlining, staff from the state's Department of
Economic Development/Workforce Development Division (which
oversees JTPA and state-funded job training programs) and the
Department of Employment Services /Field Operation have been
consolidated at the state level and plans call for the co-location of relevant
federal offices in the future. Further in the future, several state human
resource offices may join in this co-location. Closer physical access and
simplified electronic access will allow staff to work more effectively
together.

! Baker, S. (1992), Job training 2000: A local critique, in Making Sense of Federal Job Training

Policy: 24 Expert Recommendations to Create a Comprehensive and Unified Federal Job Training
System, (pp. 21-22), National Youth Employment Coalition and William T. Grant Foundation
Commission on Youth and America’s Future.

aia)
da

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs Ao


Volume V

TECHNICAL APPENDIX. oooooccccccsseseessccsssreeeeessscessevenneseeessenes
The Omnibus Survey...
1993 Followup Survey.
National Assessment of Vocationa

Education Teacher Survey...
Employer Survey....... .
State Vocational Sex Equity Administrator

Survey...

Correctional Education ‘Survey.
Vocational Student Organization Survey.._...........
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

Studies. eee ceceeeeceeeees
Community Case Studies..
Funding Case Studies. .... T-42
Native American Tribal Case Studies, ..T-45
State Records Data Collection............. wa TAT
Endnotes.

Technical ‘Appendix R References,
REFERENCES 0000.00... seceeeeeeseseennnnsessensevassnsereed Ol

LIST OF ACRONYMS...00. cc ceteeneneeeseettineesenseee ACAI

iv



Volume V

Table 3.7
Funding of JTPA Programs in Vocational Districts
Vocational
Districts
Percent of districts reporting students funded by JTPA 71
Mean amount of JTPA funds for all districts $52,492
Mean amount of JTPA funds for JTPA districts $113,484
Mean percent of district revenues for JTPA districts “2.9
Mean amount of Perkins funds for JTPA/Perkins districts $242,970
Mean percent of district revenues for JTPA/Perkins 4.4
districts
Percent of JTPA districts using district funds for JTPA 38
services

Source: Omnibus Surveys of Vocational School Districts

to support secondary students — though there is clearly some of
that — than to fund programs for adults enrolled in area
vocational schools and techaical institutes.5”

Joint funding is more common in vocational districts than in regular districts.
The proportion of vocational districts providing their own funding for JTPA

students is 38 percent, compared to 20 percent in regular districts (see Tables 3.6
and 3.7).

Bailis and Grubb conclude that districts with more adult students are better able

to cooperate with JTPA. However, it also may be that these districts simply have
more students eligible for JTPA services.

Local Coordination in Postsecondary Institutions

Postsecondary institutions providing vocational education would seem to be
more likely than secondary institutions to collaborate with JTPA and other job
training programs because they serve adults and have more flexibility to serve
nontraditional students than do high schools. In fact, the expectation holds up.
Collaborative planning is common, especially with Private Industry Councils and
remedial education efforts. (See Appendix Table A-3.13.) Only about 13 percent

86 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs

97


Volume V

Table 2.2
Average Perkins Title II-C Funds Allocated to Secondary Education Per
Professional Employee Administering Secondary Education, 1993

Number of States Number of States

with Decline in Staff | for Which 1990
Perkins H-C Funds Per | Number of for Vocational Staff Data Are
Professional Employee States Education, 1990-93 Missing
Less than $200,000 ld 2 0
$200,000-$400,000 12 7 2
$400,001-$600,000 3 3 0
$600,001-$800,000 4 2 2
$800,001-$1,000,000 1 1 0
More than $1,000,000 11 10 1

Sources: 1993 Followup Survey of Secondary State Directors; 1992 State Finance Records
Collection

low federal dollars per employee in 1993, we find that the states with high
dollars per employee were much more likely to have experienced a decline in
staff between 1990 and 1993. Of the 10 states showing more than $1 million in
1993 Perkins funds per professional employee for which staffing data are
available in both years, all had declines in staff between 1990 and 1993; the
median decline in those states was 74 percent. Of the 14 states with less than
$200,000 per professional staff person, only two experienced declines in staff
during the same period, and the declines were smaller.3 On the whole, these
findings suggest that grant award and monitoring responsibilities of individual
staff members are greater in states that had large staff declines than in states that
had smaller declines or increases in staff over the period.

To provide a somewhat different gauge of the relationship between staffing and
responsibilities or effort, we also observed the relation between staffing and
number of awards to secondary recipients. This may be a better indicator of
responsibilities than are dollars, because it is a more direct indicator of workload.
State officials interact with grantees as entities on most issues, so the number of
grantees in relation to staff is a good measure of the effort necessary to
implement such Perkins initiatives as academic/vocational integration,
standards and measures, or tech prep. Further, we already know that the number

The State Administration of the Perkins Act 4 9 3


S
sstuvafoad dasd-yoay yar syouasip aejnBaz Jo y,9f oy UO paseg are SORPTION p :
x4 ese OF £02 Lt sd v9 F99 ve Ft ueqiy, =
87 OF Te Ore 99 £89 cr TOS FF Lee uequngns, =
cara Sle ee 762 co 69 ky 769 ve BOL feng Ss
UOTPZIULQID JO [d.\0] &
oe OOF OZ Sr el £SL 06 e119 89 Oss 159M =
FC S'8e 6S S'8b FO StL oF OFS oT Le ynog e
cv 8 0E 9% LPL TL FSO Las 96S Vs Vee [equa
eo POE EK Lee v6 g99 Oz 69r cL veo SLOYWON
uol8ay
ZOL F6E _ _ LPL O09 OL Sob os OTF papunj ION
ce FEE _ _ £9 ars 6e 69 ob 218 eosuo y8noryL
(x4 LOE _ _ LD POL OF 9tL St F06 Appanp papuny
snjeys Burpuny sunjiag
st Ley Ov cae: ] ss SeL es £6S Vd FL6 S1OW 10 QO0'OL
9% T8€ St €0S ss 089 le Or ve 128 666'6-00S'7
9% Ove 67 et Zs 869 o€ oso OF OL 00s'Z wet sso7
azis juourjorug
gt £9E <4 Ete (47 S69 x4 by 8t S82 OL
joie} awumsg | sone =| ayeumsq |] soue | aeumsy| some | aus | soa | ayewnsy
paepurys prepuris prepuris paepurys prepuris
papeuray are oym €6-Z66I Ut Appanp pSjuapns €661 03 vINDTLINd dJwapeoe ASH} vIeYD JISIG
sjuapnys dard-yoay_| spumny yuawaaoidwt uonejndod 0661 Woy eIaUas pur yeuo|esoa
Jo uaaiad ueayy wireo1d supjlag Tepads jo ur diysiapeay Jo uanjerZayut
Surntazai quadIag quauyInidar aarjoe | ayeys ul aseazouT ue ayy Sunoword
ayy saajoaut dad Supiodai juaosag uo 33ajJ2 aantsod
-tpa} asoym yuadiag B pey py suey

0661 au eu
Surjrodas juacag

T-16

S~HSI JOoyDS A1epuodag ejnBay wor vyeq Aeaing dnMmojj{o, 105 sig Piepueyg payajas
LY A19eL



Volume V

Table A-3.1 (continued)
Comparison of Legislative Requirements for
Essential Elements of Employment Training Programs

JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT
Title I-A

JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT
Title II-B

FEATURE Adult Training Program Summary Youth Employment
and Training Program
Purpose To prepare adults for participation in the | To enhance basic educational skills of
labor force by increasing their occupational | youth; to encourage school completion or
and educational skills, resulting in enrollment in supplementary or alternative
improved long-term employability, school programs; to pravide eligible youth
increased employment and earnings, and | with exposure to the world of work; and to
reduced welfare dependency. enhance the citizenship skills of youth.
Administrative | Employment and Training Administration, | Employment and Training Administration,
Auspices US. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Labor
Fiscal Year 10/1 - 9/30 10/1 - 9/30
Program Year 7/1 -6/30 5/1-9/15
Planning Cycle | East state prepares an annual statement of } Each state prepares an annual statement of
goals and objectives for job training and a_ | goals and objectives for job training and
placement programs. Also, each state placement programs. Also, each state
submits a biennial coordination and submits a biennial caordination and
special services plan to ETA for approval. | special services plan to ETA for approval
he proposed plans are published for he proposed plans are published for
review not fewer than 120 days prior to review not fewer than 120 days prior to
July 1. The state submits a final plan to July 1. The state submits a final plan to
DOL for approval not fewer than 60 days | DOL for approval not fewer than 60 days
before July 1. before July 1.
Reporting Program reports are submitted annually to | Program report includes the number and
Requirements DOL. Financial reports are submitted characteristics of participants and level of
quarterly and annually. funding, The report is due 45 days after
9/30.
(Continued) (Continued)
(Continued)
12
a
A-18 Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training Programs



Volume V

Summary

We found that coordination between vocational education and job training
programs is occurring at the local level in a wide variety of forms. The most
innovative form recently advocated by federal policy — one-stop centers — is
supported by one-half of all state postsecondary agencies. Case studies indicate
that they can provide ease of access and a full range of programs.

Most secondary school districts, both regular and vocational, provide JTPA
services (particularly summer employment) to a relatively small number of
students. The vocational education and JTPA programs are usually jointly
planned and students are jointly selected, but few districts supplement the JTPA
funds with their own district funds. Cooperation and joint funding with JTPA are
more common in vocational districts than in regular districts. Although JTPA
services are a larger part of the vocational districts’ overall program than regular
districts’, they are small in relation to the vocational districts’ overall enrollment.

Most public two-year postsecondary institutions coordinate continuously with
JTPA and remedial education programs. Coordination with the welfare-to-work
program, JOBS, is less frequent. The enrollment contributed by these two
programs is not trivial, but is relatively small compared to overall postsecondary
vocational educational enrollments. Most institutions have JTPA or JOBS
students enrolled in associate-degree or certificate programs, but remedial
programs are almost as common.

About half of the postsecondary institutions reported no barriers to the joint
provision of services to JTPA or JOBS clients. Among the other half, lack of time
and resources were most often perceived as barriers to coordination.

Joint funding of JTPA programs is more common at the postsecondary than the
secondary level, with half of the funds for JTPA programs coming from
institutional sources, largely in the form of regular state aid but also from other
sources, including Perkins funds. The contribution made by JTPA to the average
institution’s overall budget is about 3 percent of revenues, and Perkins
contributes at about the same level.

Coordination at the local level appears to be occurring more often than not, often
in imaginative ways. Although, once again, evidence of its effectiveness is
lacking, the results appear on the surface to be positive.

BUREAUCRATIC AND POLITICAL REALITIES

Broad policy concerns such as the need for greater coherence in job-training
programs can be developed and enunciated by policymakers, but they have to be
worked out and implemented amidst the hard realities of agency budgets,
bureaucratic priorities, and political realities.

Coordinating Vocational Education and Federal Job-Training aie 93



Volume V

Table 2.4
Number of State Administrators of Postsecondary
Vocational Education, 1990 and 1993

Employee Data 1990 1993

Average number of employees in state 71.5 114.6
agency/division where administration of
vocational programs is located

Average number of employees in state 37.3 59.3
agency /division administering postsecondary
vocational education

Number of employees in median state 23.5 32.0
agency /division completing questionnaire

Number of employees in median state /agency 6.4 74
administering postsecondary vocational
education

Sources: 1992 Omnibus Survey of Postsecondary State Directors; 1993 Followup Survey of
Postsecondary State Directors

individual colleges in their state administrative data while others do not. Further,
many states do not have separate state offices for administration of
postsecondary vocational programs, meaning that estimates of staff devoted to
that activity are likely to be rough. Because of the apparent increase in state
staffing as well as the limitations of the postsecondary data, we have not
analyzed the relationship between state staffing and federal funds or number of
awards,”

The reported changes in the number of vocational staff in secondary and
postsecondary agencies parallel changes in vocational enrollments. In secondary
districts, they are declining, while secondary enrollments in general are
increasing. In postsecondary institutions, vocational enrollments are increasing
along with all enrollments.

STATE REPORTS ON ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

Despite declining staff numbers, state directors of secondary (as well as
postsecondary) vocational education report increases in staff time devoted to
program oversight and technical assistance activities between 1990 and 1993.
These increases have occurred for both state-based functions and initiatives

34 4 5 The State Administration of the Perkins Act