ED 203 064

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATE

NOT?

AVAILABLE FROM

DOCUMENT RESUME

CE 029 114

The Unfolding Youth Initiatives. Program Evaluation.

Youth Knowledge Development Report 3.14.

National Council on Employment Policy (DOL),

Washington, D.C.

Employment and Training Administration (DOL,

Washington, D.C. Office of Youth Programs.

May 80

430p.: For related documents see CE 029 106.

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC 20402 (Stock No.

029-014-00153-3, $9.001.

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC13 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Adolescents: *Case Studies: Community Cooperation:

Community Organizations: Demonstration Programs:

Disadvantaged Youth: Economically Disadvantaged:

*Employment Programs: Federal Programs; Government

School Relationship: Job Placement: Participant

Characteristics: Program Descriptions; *Program

Effectiveness: Program Evaluation; Research

Methodology: Research Utilization: *Work Experience

Programs: Youth: *Youth Employment

IDENTIFIERS *Comprehensive Employment and Training Act: Youth

Community Conservation Improvement Project: *Youth

Employment and Demonstration Projects Act: Youth

Employment Training Program

ABSTRACT

This is the second report concerning how

Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA sponsors implemented

two programs under the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects

Act (YEDPA1, specifically the Youth Community Conservation

Improvement Projects (fCCIP1 and Youth Employment and Training

Program (YETP). The report is based on studies by observers of 37

CETA sponsors during January-Mav, 1978. Part 1 of the report presents

an overview drawing together the findings from the local analysts'

case studies. The case studies make up Part 2. Principal findings of

the study are the following: (11 the rapid implementation of YEDPA

was a malor accomplishment: (2) although the YEDPA emphasis on

knowledge development resulted in more local evaluation, little

Productive data have been generated: (31 work experience should be

coupled with teaching basic work habits and their importance: (4

youth advisory councils are not effective in increasing youth

participation: (51 sponsors concentrated on the economically

disadvantaged: (61 YEDPA resources were substituting in some cases

for funds from other youth programs: (7) community -based

organizations were "thoroughly involved" in the youth program

delivery: (81 links with local education agencies were poor but

promising: and (9) the prilmte sector and uniors were rarely involved

in sponsor initiatives. (KC1
YOUTH KNOWLE

RE

PROGRAM

The Unfoldin
DEVELOPMENT

T

ALUATION

uth Initiatives

0

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

EDUCATION & WELFARE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS F ^CEIVEO FROM

THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION J ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINI... _

STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY
U.S. Department of Labor

Ray Marshall, Secretary

Employment and Training Administration

Ernest G. Green, Assistant Secretary for

Employment and Training Administration

Office of Youth Programs

Material contained in this publication is

in the public domain and may be

reproduced, fully or partially, without

permission of the Federal Government.

Source credit is requested but not

required. Permission is required only

to reproduce any copyrighted material

contained herein.

3
YOUTH KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT REPORT 3,14

THE UNFOLDING YOUTH INITIATIVES

National Council on Employment Policy

May 1980

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402

4
OVERVIEW

The Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act introduced

four new programs intended to expand and improve the quality

of youth employment and training activities. The desired

improvements included greater involvement of community based

groups, unions and the private sector in delivery of services,

more structured and supervised work experience enriched by

counseling, occupational information and other support and

increased coordination with the education system.

The employment and training system charged with the expansion

and improvement of local youth services consists of more than

470 State and local units of government or prime sponsors which

are granted funds through ten regional offices of the Department of Labor, within parameters established in regulations

and policy guidances issued by the Office of Youth Programs

in the Employment and Training Administration. The prime

sponsors vary greatly in their economic conditions, capacities,

interests and perspectives. The regional offices of the

Department also have decisionmaking latitude within the

nationally established parameters. This flexibility is intended to permit adaptation to varing local and regional

conditions. The performance of the employment and training

system in achieving its mandate is thus the aggregation of

varying developments in different areas facing different

conditions, as well as the cumulative reflection of a number

of decisionmakers at all levels.

This is the second report by the National Council on Employment

Policy on how CETA sponsors implemented two programs under

the new Youth Act, specifically the Youth Community Conservation

and Improvement Projects (YCCIP) and Youth Employment and Training

Program (YETP).

The report is based on studies by 10 local observers of 37 CETA

sponsors in the period between January and May 1978, when actual

enrollments had gotten underway, As of June 1978, the end period

covered by this assessment some 17,400 youth were enrolled in

YCCIP and about 164,000 in YETP,

Part one of the report presents an "overview" drawing together

the findings from the local analysts" case studies, which are

presented in Part Two. In brief, principal findings are that;
ii

(1) "Given the scale and complexity of the new youth

programs, the pace of YEDPA implementation represents a major

accomplishment", although the rapid expansion "was not achieved

without a great deal of stress", particularly as sponsors were

also trying to complete the PSE expansion.

(2) The Youth Act's emphasis on "knowledge development"

efforts by sponsors led to more local evaluation, research

and demonstration activities. However, "the prospects for

getting useful intelligence out of this ro "nd of programs are

not very good. There are methodological inadequacies and, more

importantly, competing priorities that ... limit the impact of

the initiatives".

(3) On the quality of work experience, sponsors

gave more emphasis than in the past to supervision, monitoring

of worksites, and nonwork support or "enrichment" services. Some

made arrangements for academic.credit for the work experience,

but most were still encountering problems or resistance on this.

The idea of "career-related jobs is proving to be

impractical". Youth generally have not thought about career

plans, have unrealistic plans and only vague notions about

work, or have plans that do not fit the jobs available.

Vocational exploration classes and counseling seem to be more

effective mechanisms for providing exposure to career options.

"The strategy that is emerging is one of using work experience

together with vocational exploration programs as a vehicle for

starting youths in the process of thinking about future work

and careers.

The report urges priority for work experience "that

teaches, at a minimum, basic work habits and the importance of

those habi's" and more attention to developing of jobs in which

some learning is transferable to future private employment.

(4) Youth advisory councils "appear to be a poor vehicle

for increasing youth participation" in sponsor activities. The

councils were often figureheads and youths on them were usually

not active. Some sponsors experimented with other types

of methods to generate involvement and feedback from youth,

with some success.

(5) Sponsors consistently concentrated on the

economically disadvantaged, tending to enroll those most

in need, although there was some interest in broadening selection

to avoid the stigma of a "poverty" program. There was underenrollment of females in YCCIP projects, where enrollment typically

was fewer than 1 female for every 3 males.

Ei
111

(6) Substitution of YEDPA resources for CETA Title I

resources was not a serious problem at the outset. There was,

rather, considerable use of other program resources to

enrich the youth initiatives. However, there are indications

that YEDPA resources were substituting in some cases for funds

from non-CETA youth programs.

(7) Community based organizations were "thoroughly involved"

in the youth program delivery. There appeared to be no systematic

differences between effectiveness of CEO performance and that of

other delivery organizations, so that the main effect of the YEDPA

emphasis on use of CB0swas to broaden the base of local

organization participation.

(8) On links with local education agencies (LEA), the

"progress to date, and the potential for further progress, is

encouraging", but there were common problems in negotiating joint

efforts: distrust, differences in standards, perspectives, and

organizational objectives, and difficulties in synchronizing

the YEDPA program year and the LEAs' school year.

(9) On ties to the private sector, there was generally

limited private industry response to sponsor initiatives,

although there was scattered evidence of some genuine contact

and action. Also, with a few exceptions, unions remained only

peripherally involved.

This volume is one of the products of the "knowledge development" effort implemented under the mandate of the Youth Employment

and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977. The knowledge development

effort consists of hundreds of separate research, evaluation and

demonstration activities which will result in literally thousands

of written products. The activities have been structured from the

outset so that each is self-standing but also interrelated with a

host of other activities. The framework is presented in A Knowledge Development Plan for the You..h Employment and Demonstration

Projects Act of 1977, A Knowledge Development Plan for the Youth

Initiatives Fiscal 1979, and Completing the Youth Agenda: A Plan

for Knowledge Development, Dissemination and Application in Fiscal

1980.

Information is available or will be coming available from the

various knowledge development activities to help resolve an almost

limitless array of issues, but answers to policy questions will

usually require integration and synthesis from a number of separate

products, which, in turn, will depend on knowledge and availability

of these products. A major shortcoming of past research, evaluation

and demonstration activity has been the failure to organize and

disseminate the products adequately to assure the full exploitation

of the findings. The magnitude and structure of the youth knowledge

development effort puts a premium on organization and dissemination.
iv

As part of its knowledge development mandate, therefore, the

Office of Youth Programs of the Department of Labor will organize,

publish and disseminate the written products of all major research,

evaluation and demonstration activities supported directly by or

mounted in conjunction with the knowledge development effort. Some

of the same products may also be published and disseminated through

other channels, but they will be included in the structured series

of Youth Knowledge Development Reports in order to facilitate

access and integration.

The Youth Knowledge Development Reports, of which this is one,

are divided into twelve broad categories:

1. Knowledge Development Framework: The products in this

category are concerned with the structure of knowledge development

activities, the assessment methodologies which are employed, validation of measurement instruments, the translation of knowledge

into policy, and the strategy for disseminating findings.

2. Research on Youth Employment and Employability Development: The products in this category represent analyses .of existing

data, presentation of findings from new data sources, special studies

on dimensions of youth labor market problems and policy analyses.

3. Program Evaluations: The products in this category include

impact, process and benefit-cost evaluations of youth programs including the Summer Youth Employment Program, Job Corps, the Young

Adult Conservation Corps, Youth Employment and Training Programs,

Youth Community Conservation and Improvement Projects, and the

Targeted Jobs Tax Credit.

4. Service and Participant Mix: The evaluations and demonstrations summari ..ed in this category concern the matching of

different types of youth with different service combinations. This

involves experiments with work vs. work plus remediation vs.

straight remediation as treatment options. It also includes

attempts to mig disadvantaged and more affluent participants, as

well as youth with older workers.

5. Education and TraininsApproaches: The products in this

category present the findings of structured experiments to test the

impact and effectiveness of various education and vocational training

approaches including specific education methodologies for the disadvantaged, alternative education approaches and advanced career

training.

6. Pre-Employment and Transition Services: The products in

this category present the findings of structured experiments to

test the impact and effectiveness of school-to-work transition

activities, vocational exploration, job-search assistance and other

efforts to better prepare youth for labor market success.
V

7. Youth Work Experience: The products in this category

address the organization of work activities: their output, productive roles for youth and the impacts of various employment

approaches.

8. Implementation Issues: This category includes -osscutting analyses of the practical lessons concerning "how-todo-it." Issues such as learning curves, replication processes

and programmatic "batting averages" will be addressed under this

category, as well as the comparative advantages of alternative

delivery agents.

9. Design and Organizational Alternatiqes: The products in

this category represent assessments of demonstrations of alternative

program and delivery arrangements such as consolidation, year-round

preparation for summer programming, the use of incentives and

multiyear tracking of individuals.

10. Special Needs Groups: The products in this category

present findings on the special problems of and adaptations needed

for significant segments including minorities, young mothers,

troubled youth, Indochinese refugees and the handicapped.

11. Innovative Approaches: The products in this category

present the findings of those activities designed to explore new

approaches. The subjects covered include the Youth Incentive

Entitlement Pilot Projects, private sector initiatives, the

national youth service experiment, and energy initiatives in

weatherization, low-head hydroelectric dam restoration and

windpower generation.

12. Institutional Linkages: The products in this category

will include studies of institutional arrangements and linkages

as well as assessments of demonstration activities to encourage

such linkages with education, volunteer groups, drug abuse agencies

and the like.

In each of these knowledge development categories, there will

be a range of discrete demonstration, research and evaluation

activities focused on different policy, program and analytical

issues. For instance, all experimental demonstration projects have

both process and impact evaluations, frequently undertaken by

different evaluation agents. Findings will be published as they

become available so that there will usually be a series of reports

as evidence accumulates. To organize these products, each publication is classified in one of the twelve broad knowledge development

categories, described in terms of the more specific issue, activity

or cluster of activities to which it is addressed, with an identifier

of the product and what it represents relative to other products in

the demonstration. Hence, the multiple products under a knowledge

development activity are closely interrelated and the activities

in each broad cluster have significant interconnections.
vi

This report by the National Council on Employment Policy is the second of four reports which include: Initial Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act (YEDPA) Experience

at the Local Level, The Local Focus on Youth and Youth and

the Tiocal Employment Agenda.

While the final report summarizes much of the information

in the first three volumes, the complete set of studies provides a fuller picture of the process of implementation and then stabilization of these new prime sponsor programs. Other reports in the

"program evaluations" category provide further perspective on the effectiveness of prime sponsors in implementing these programs. Basic data are provided in the report from the Continuous Longitudinal Manpower Survey, Characteristics of Enrollees Under Age 22 Who Entered CETA Programs During Fiscal Year 1978. Office of Youth Programs assessments of the YETP and YCCIP experience are provided in Youth Initiatives and A Foundation for the 1980s.

ROBERT TAGGART

Administrator

Office of Youth Programs

10
Table of Contents

OVERVIEW

PART ONE: A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT

The National Picture

Experience at the Local Level

Knowledge Development

Quality of Work Experience under YEDPA

Youth Participation

Targeting

Substitution

Coordinating Services for Youth

Involvement of Community Based Organizations

Changes in Institutional Relationships

Conclusions and Recommendations

PART TWO: CASE STUDIES

Peter Barth

Vernon Briggs

Peter Kobrak

Gretchen Maclachian

Paul Osterman

Randall Ripley

Myron Roomkin

R. C. Smith

Bonnie Snedeker

John Walsh

Connecticut

Texas/New Mexico

Michigan

Georgia

Massachusetts

Ohio

Illinois

North Carolina

Oregon /Washington'

California

Page

14

4

9

18

21

27

31

38

39

48

A-1

B-1

C-1

D-1

E-1

F-1

G-1

H-1

I-1

J-1
A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT

Gregory Wurzburg

Executive Director

National Council on

Employment Policy

July 1978
THE NATIONAL PICTURE

The Youth Employment. and Demonstration Projects Act was enacted

to serve a number of ambitious goals, including institutional change and

sound experimentation. But perhaps the most persuasive reason for passing

YEDPA was the interest in reducing unemployment among youth, among minority

youth in particular. Once YEDPA became law, there was a strong national

pressure for creating a great number of employment and training

opportunities over a relatively brief period of time.

Given the scale and complexity of the new youth programs, the

pace of YEDPA implementation represents a major accomplishment. Between

December 1977 and June 1978, 225,000 emploj, t and training positions

have been created for youth under YEDPA; 20,/00 under the Young Adult

Conservation Corps, 19,200 under the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot

Projects, 163,900 under the Youth Employment and Training Programs' formula

funded efforts, 17,400 under Youth Conservation and Improvement Projects'

regular programs, and an estimated 4,000 with discretionary YETP and YCCIP

money. The job creation effort already comes close to equalling in

numbers, and will soon exceed the two and one-half year build up of inschool and out-of-school Neighborhood Youth Corps activities in the

1960s.

This rapid expansion was not achieved without a great deal of

stress, particularly for prime sponsors trying to complete the public

service employment expansion. The internal complexity of YETP and YCCIP,

and the interfaces that they mandate between prime sponsors and other local

institutions, exaceroated the inherent difficulties of program implementation.

Prime sponsors experienced delays in getting local plans completed and

approved. The process of negotiating agreements with local education

agencies was frequently a protracted one.

Table 1

End of Month Enrollments for YEDPA

(does not include enrollments in projects funded

with YCCIP and YLTP discretionary funds)

Month (1978) Jan. Feb. March A

YLTP 18,917 50,014 88,771 12

YCCIP 1,807 5,569 10,645 1 YIEPP INA INA 8,712 1 ..... YACC 8,159 9,598 11,409 1

. ...... . -- TOTAL INA INA 1]9,537 16

_.. 13

Dril

?,928

2,073

May June

154,635 163,900

15,251 17,400

5,566 22,000 19,200

?,851 16,540 20,700

3,418 208,426 221,200
2

Some prime sponsors met the December start up date originally

set by the Department of Labor. But although overall program enrollment

has lagged by those early ambitious standards, enrollment should be

considered good by any other standards. It might be considered ideal, in

light of recent shifts in national policy which deemphasize spending on

employment and training programs for youth.

Because many prime sponsors did not begin implementation until

late winter, end of quarter enrollments recorded on March 31st were low,

for YETP especially. They were 69 percent of plan for YCCIP and 53 percent

of plan for YETP. But the apparent poor showing is mitigated when the

basis for the planned enrollments is considered.

YEDPA was authorized for one year when it was enacted in August,

1977. It was funded initially for $1 billion, as part of President Carter's

economic stimulus package. A supplemental appropriation of $500 million

was anticipated, and so enrollment projections were based on spending a

total of $1.5 billion by the end of fiscal 1978, which could then be

maintained in fiscal 1979.

However, in the face of national unemployment edging downwards,

prime sponsor delays in implementing YEDPA, and the almost certain extension

of the youth programs beyond September, the $500 million supplemental

appropriation was never made. But prime sponsors were instructed to retain

their enrollment plans, using money saved by slow implementation to build

enrollments in the latter part of the year.

In the period from March 31st to April 30th, prime sponsors

continued their build-up. By the end of April, they were 71 percent of

plan for both YCCIP and YETP. But by then, many prime sponsors were

expressing concern over funding beyond September 30, 1978.

Late in the spring, the Department of Labor, reacting to budget

revisions for fiscal 1979, reversed its emphasis on pushing prime sponsors

to spend all their funds in fiscal 1978. Since then, the Office of Youth

Programs has advised the Department of Labor regional offices to revise

downward overall prime sponsor spending to 73 percent of the fiscal 1978

allocations. Enrollment targets reflecting this recent development have not

been formulated yet. But, although actual enrollments were far short of

planned enrollments, prime sponsors reacted quickly. In June, the YCCIP

and YETP enrollment increases were less than a fifth of the May increases.

Field work for this interim report was cut off before prime

sponsors had reacted to the mandate for a lower spending level. Consequently,

the material that follows does not report on the adjustments individual

sponsors made. It is impossible to say whether the sudden drop in

enrollment growth is due to policy changes or to a natural leveling off

process that occurred as prime sponsors approached their targets. In fact,

it appears that the impacts of this on-again, off-again approach were

probably minimized because enrollments in most prime sponsor areas were

below plan. Early pressure was needed to get them to the 73 percent spending

level. Certainly, however, the mixed signals have not contributed to

1.4
orderly planning. The case studies do report on how particular prime

sponsors reacted to earlier DOL directives, and the shape that local

activities have taken so far.
EXPERIENCE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

A natural point of interest in evaluating the implementation of

any decentralized program is the way in which national policy is filtered

and interpreted, and how it finally fleshes out at the local level. For

a program such as YEDPA, with complex provisions and diverse ob:,ctives,

this concern is a central one.

Many observers at both the national and local level, argue that

YEDPA represents, in fact, a retrenchment from the original (joal of the

CETA system: decentralized and decategorized policy formulatio.1 and

program delivery. Critics see YEDPA as a categorical, special purpose

program that preempts the prime sponsor decisionmaking role with respect

to youth policy, and erodes their decisionmaking authority with respect to

local manpower programming in general.

The harshest criticism, notwithstanding, prime sponsors can

still exercise a large degree of discretion as they implement and operate

the new youth initiatives. Although many of the YEDPA goals promulgated

from the national level are quite specific, prime sponsors have a good

deal of latitude in how they approach these goals.

Last August, the Department of Labor's Office of Youth Programs

distributed A Planning Charter for the YouthEmployment_and Demonstration

Projects Act. In the charter, the Office laid out general principles. They

are the goals and priorities that were intended to serve as a guide to

national and local policymakers with responsibilities for implementing the

new Act.

The principles present convenient refererte points for Evaluating

prime sponsor progress. The case studies analyze prime sponsor experience

in terms of the primary areas of concern (some principles were consolidated).

They are: knowledge development, the quality of work experience, youth

participation, targeting, substitution, coordination of services, the role

of community-based organizations, and institutional change.

Knowledge Development

One of the central emphases of the Youth Employment and

Demonstration Projects Act is on learning: about the nature of youth

employment problems, and about the effectiveness of different strategies

for dealing with those problems. The hope is that a few years' worth of

well-documented experiments will prove a useful investment, yielding more

effective programs in the long run.

There is a dual focus to the YEDPA learning exercise, or

"knowledge development:" a national focus and a local focus. At the

national level, the Office of Youth Progt.ms in the Department of Labor,

is supporting a series of demonstration and research projects funded with
5

discretionary funds. A few prime sponsors have been selected to operate highly

structured pilot projects testing the effect of guaranteed jobs on drop-out

rates and youth employment behavior. Other demonstration projects are

being funded to test the relative effectiveness of different program

deliverers, different ways of linking prime sponsors with local schools,

and with private sector employers. This is the most comprehensive array

of structured demonstration, evaluation and research activities ever undertaken in connection with the development of employment and training policy.

The other aspect of knowledge development activities, of particular

interest for the purposes of this report, is the evaluation, research and

demonstration work all prime sponsors are expected to carry on in implementing

their youth programs. It is hoped that these initiatives will provide CETA

operators with immedwtely relevant lessons on how to deal with youth

employment problems in their respective areas. It is also hoped that they

will provide a base of experience and expertise that will subsequently

be helpful in replicating and applying the lessons learned from national

experiments.

The first round of case studies looked at prime sponsor operations

through early January. In that first round, it was evident that prime

sponsors were confused by the knowledge development mandate since such

activities had not been stressed under previous CETA programs. Prime

sponsors greeted it with a healthy degree of skepticism, attaching a

variety of definitions to the concept, and pursuing it in a number of

ways. Some saw "knowledge development" as a new buzz word for describing

evaluation work they had been doing all along. Others saw it as dictating

experimental programs featuring rigorous research designs. A few prime

sponsors did nothing. However, most accepted the call for knowledge

development, although somewhat tentatively, and attempted to do something.

Experience Since January

The uncertainty over knowledge development and the shortage of

time for implementing knowledge development plans, that the field evaluators

found in the planning and early implementation stage, has carried through

into the early months of operation. A shortage of time forced prime

sponsors to give short shrift to all but the most necessary considerations.

The lack of guidance caused some local administrators to delay action even

more, as they tried to get further clarifikation from regional offices.

As a result of all the start-up pressures and initial confusion, the

prospects for getting useful intelligence out of this round of programs

are not very good. There are methodological inadequacies and, more

importantly, competing priorities that may limit the investment in knowledge

development projects and limit the impact of the initiatives.

It appears that, at a minimum, prime sponsors welcome what they

see to be a new emphasis on quality, and want to give more attention to

the effect of what they are doing. The effort has increased attention to

qualitative issues and shows signs of opening the door to greater
6

innovation. But there is still the proverbial gulf between hopes and

reality. The actual steps that prime sponsors are taking to implement

knowledge development strategies are still uncertain. Most have responded

with some isolated plans; a few are implementing comprehensive strategies.

But the overall tendency has been to respond to what local administrators

think DOL wants to hear. Prime sponsors have become accustomed to careful

directions from Washington, and many did not know how to handle the

opportunity for local creativity. Few plans reflect a real concern at

the local level for looking at the impact of the programs because the

process of implementation has required too much attention on the front

end. However, much more is being done in the knowledge development area,

than would have been done in the absence of the mandate. Many prime

sponsors appear to be closer to recognizing the usefulness of knowledge

development for their own purposes. Once that hurdle is crossed, there

may be some substantive progress towards developing local research and

evaluation capabilities.

Knowledge development activities fall mid three issue areas:

program management, program components, and program impact. Two prime

sponsors have knowledge development activities geared to improving program

management. Portland is introducing a performance contracting system in

which contractors must establish performance goals. This is hoped to

improve the prime sponsor's managerial control over contractors, and

provide information that can be used in the planning process. Chicago is

expected to continue its established practice of feeding evaluation

information on program performance into the planning process. It is not

clear in the case of either Chicago or Portland that the net impact of

the YEDPA emphasis on knowledge development is appreciable. Portland nad

already given high priority to establishing accountability goals before

YEDPA. The youth legislation did, however, provide the nudge to get things

mov -ing, with a mandate and money. Chicago's process of feeding c,;;Aluation

results into planning is nothing new. But it does mean that where youth

research and evaluation work bears fruit, there will be a channel available

for incorporating those findings into policy.

The frequent response to the knowledge development mandate has

been to look at a number of "process" issues. Prime sponsors are laying

out designs for examining the feasibility of several innovative program

components. The Muskegon Opportunities Industrialization Center, a Muskegon community-based organization, is testing the abilities of enrollees

and attempting to place exceptional youths directly in unsubsidized

employment, instead of placing them in regular program activities. Kitsap

County is hoping to assess the effect on work quality that individualized

learning plans and closer cooperation with employers may have. The

Muskegon prime sponsor is trying to find out how well paraprofessionals

can substitute for professionals as counselors and job coaches. DeKalb

County is trying to find ways of reducing drop-out rates and improving

placements for a clerical training program. The Connecticut Balance of

State prime sponsor tried to test a cash incentive system for reducing

absenteeism and turnover among enrollees in one program. However, the

DOL regional office rejected the idea. Now, the main thrust of the balance

of their knowledge development work, like Waterbury's, is to monitor

performance through the existing management information system.
7

Prime sponsors are aggressively pushing fairly sophisticated impact

studies. They are attempting to utilize pre-program and post-program

observations of experimental groups and control groups, frequently relying

on outside consultants to provide technical assistance, or to actually

manage these projects. In Lane County, the University of Oregon is under

contract to run a project pairing mentally retarded and non-retarded youth

in a work experience situation. The Oregon Balance of State prime sponsor

is conducting a mixed income test to see whether income eligible and income

non-eligible youth (permitted under the YETP 10 percent set-aside) benefit

to different degrees from the same program. The Coastal Bend Consortium

is comparing the work performance and academic achievements of economically

disadvantaged youth to that of non-disadvantaged youth. Sonoma, sponsoring

one of the most sophisticated projects, is analyzing five local firms to

see what overtime work could be converted to entry level slots for youth, and

to assess the cost of that conversion. If overtime work can be converted to

new jobs on a practical basis, and if local workers can be persuaded to

forego some overtime, the prime sponsor hopes to establish a job creation

program underwriting conversion costs to local firms. Lansing wants to

analyze the difference between the effectiveness of traditional work

experience and the YCCIP project approach. Evaluators there want to

examine placements into unsubsidized employment, the kind of jobs youths

go into, retention in those jobs, wages, and the effect on in-school

attendance. Under YETP they are taking advantage of the mixed income

option.

Rockford has the most comprehensive knowledge development

activity, consisting of a research design that embraces all YEDPA activities

and participants. To plan for knowledge .development, administrators brought

in a planning team and hired a consultant. Together they assembled a

manual, describing the sponsor's knowledge development goals in detail.

It is used for instructing all program operators on how they are to

incorporate their activities into the overall scheme. The attitude of the

youth program director there is not to set arbitrary performance targets,

but, rather, to closely monitor performance and diagnose the mechanics of

successes and failures. All the programs are seen to be experimental.

On a more modest level, Grand Rapids, Lansing and Muskegon will be

administering questionnaires as youths complete the programs. The

questionnaires are intended to measure attitudinal and behavioral changes

in the program participants.

The widespread interest in undertaking knowledge development

work belies the faulty design associated with many of the projects, the

obstacles that prime sponsors are encountering, and the misgivings that

nicAy have about the concept of knowledge development. For instance, the

Lane County project pairing retarded and non-retarded youth was originally

designed as an experiment that would include youths above the income

cut-off. But the regional office rejected the proposal because it did

not meet DOL-established guidelines. The project is now of questionable

value because the prime sponsor cannot locate enough income eligible

youths who are retarded. The Oregon Balance of State sponsor did manage

to win approval for a mixed income project. However, prime sponsor

administrators admit that whatever the findings are, they will be of only

1.0
p, _ limited utility, because the sponsor is testing variables over which

administrators have little control. However, the project is expected tr.

be useful in testing the feasibility of performing impact studies in th(

highly decentralized balance of state operations.

Many local evaluators, slavishly devoted to the formalities of

rigorous social experimentation, are frequently testing, what may be

inappropriate hypotheses. When, or if answers are forthcoming, they may

not be useable in formulating policy. Even if they are useable, it is not

clear that the answers are valid and reliable. Control groups are frequently

being set up with, what appears to be, too little concern for comparability.

Experimental groups, especially for the mixed income projects, are too

small to yield statistically significant results. Frequently, the value

of using pre-tests and post-tests, is wished out when evaluators give

too little attention to how trustworthy instruments like test scores or

enrollee records may be.

Prime sponsor interest is necessary, but it is not sufficient

for getting knowledge development activities off the ground. Local

evaluators have encountered obstacles blocking their way. The most

pervasive is simply a lack of resources to devote to knowledge development.

Confronted with the choice between maximum services now, or less service

now in return for the presumably better service later, the pressure of

local interest groups for maximum services is nearly irres):Aible. This

was well-documented in the planning phase, and is still in evidence.

Other factors stand in the way, too. In Durham-Orange, local administrators

were not able to implement a sophisticated experiment using a control

group and experimental group to test the effect of work experience on

drop-out rates and school achievement. Program operation has taken too

much time, and administrators decided the design was too sophisticated

for them. In Chicago, the manpower agency has a computerized management

information system which could be used for analyzing data that the prime

sponsor has been recording from past programs, and is being used to record

data from YEDPA. But there is a great deal of uncertainty now, about

which variables ought to be measured and recorded. In spite of their

extensive records and in spite of the presence of an evaluation office,

administrators still feel the need for some outside assistance on

evaluation design. In Atlanta, despite the ready availability of

employment service records and YCCIP and YETP data, little analysis is

expected because of time pressures. The Grand Rapids Public Schools,

involved extensively with the consortium's efforts under YEDPA, will also

have extensive youth data in its automated information system; but

because of higher priorities within the school systems, the data analysis

projects may be bumped. Early plans in Hartford called for using YCCIP

allocations in a program to test the effectiveness of a labor intensive

project awarding academic credit in encouraging youths to return to

school. When school credit could not be arranged, the project was dropped.

Prime sponsors did not. take kindly to knowledge development when

the concept was first presented. Now that they are making an effort to do

something with it, they still have misgivings. In San Francisco, evaluators

recalled the lessons of the early 1960s when they found how hard it was to

20
link research and action programs. The youth director in Oakland, a former

demonstration project director, and the Marin County program administrator

both questioned the wisdom of "using politically vulnerable CETA prime

sponsors as research agents." (John Walsh, Page J-7). The deputy director

of the Atlanta CETA office questioned whether the counteryclical objectives

of YEDPA and the knowledge development mandate were compatible. He argued

that "fewer approaches dnd greater investment per slot would have permitted

more informed knowledge development ...." (Gretchen Mdclachlan, Page D-2).

But such a strategy would undermine the job creation impact of the youth

initiatives.

Knowledge development continues to pose problems for many prime

sponsors, and apparently for some regional offices. There has been

confusion stemming, in part, from the lack of clear directions, but alto

from the non-traditional emphasis on local experimentation and evaluation.

The lack of time has been a critical impediment to careful planning.

In most of the prime sponsorships, however, the mandate is

producing some sincere attempts at discovering what really works in serving

youths. There is a healthy diversity in the plans. It is apparent that

most of them are not prepackaged exercises, and do reflect local initiative.

However, because of the difficulties associated with the first year's

experience, many knowledge development projects will fall short of achieving

the ambitious goals that certain sponsors have set. It will be important,

therefore, to monitor the local response in the second year of YEDPA, to

see whether evaluators throw in the towel, or try to reshape their plans,

better adapting them to serving their own needs and adopting more realistic

gcals.

The Quality. of Work Experience Under YEDPA _ One of the acknowledged shortcomings of past youth programs has

been the low quality of work experience. Poor supervision, unstructured

work assignments, and nonaccountability have contributed to youth jobs that

have left program enrollees no more skilled, and no wiser to the world of

work than when they started. The jobs were frequently nothing more thar

make-work and income transfer programs.

Sponsors of the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act

recognized some of the shortcomings of earlier youth programs. The Act

puts a strony accent on correcting past faults and creating employment and

training programs for young adults that contribute in significant and

positive ways to their development. The Act states specifically that its

purpose is "... to provide youth ... with opportunities to learn and earn

that will lead to employment opportunities after they completed the program."

The Department of Labor, in trying to carry through on that mandate,

has promulgated regulations and technical assistance documents to steer

prime sponsors towards providing adequate supervision, towards monitoring

program activities and worksites, and towards making every effort to place

youths in jobs related to their career interests.
- 10 -

As the programs have fleshed out, prime sponsors have debated the

issue of what makes a quality job, or what makes a quality employment and

training experience. Different formulas have evolved in the course of these

debates. Some common ingredients persist, though. They consistently come

up as considerations in any judgments about work values. One is the attitude

that prime sponsors have towards job quality. Another is the nature of

auxillary services for work experience enrollees.

Prime sponsors are giving special attention to job quality, and

are trying a variety of mechanisms for achieving it, and assuring that an

emphasis is kept focused on it. These include placing a greater stress on

providing adequate supervision, documenting competencies and providing

academic credit. These approaches appear to be having mixed impacts on the

jobs. Some of them are also proving to be difficult tactics to adopt.

Sponsors are also making consistent efforts to provide career exploration,

guidance, and other support services off the job sites.

In the final analysis, the youth participants are the key reference

point in analyzing job quality. Observations made from that perspective

indicate that some rethinking on this crucial matter may be in order, both

to redefine what is meant by "quality" jobs, and to reexplore approaches to

assuring quality jobs.

The Prime Sponsor Emphasis on Quality

The starting point in implementing a national jobs and training

program for youth, was to instill in prime sponsors the emphasis on quality.

That simple stress appears to have been lacking before, or at least

suffered low priority treatment at the prime sponsor level. This conclusion

is based on the reception given the mandate for quality. One researcher

noted "... that prime sponsors are not only aware that YEDPA emphasizes

improvements in job quality, but they are also highly supportive of the

focus on quality job creation." (Bonnie Snedeker, Page 1-3). Another

evaluation identified the spirit of a "new effort" in the YEDPA programs.

/emphasis added/ (R. C. Smith, Page H-ST

Prime sponsors, adopting the emphasis on quality, are transmitting

the message in a variety of wads. Many of them have gotten the message

through to the contractors that "YETP and YCCIP are programs intended to

provide youth with work experience, where relevant ,to program activities,

for the purpose of career development and enhancement rather than simply

with glorified income maintenance." (Peter Kobrak, Page C-12). The

countercyclical goal of fast job creation has been sooner sacrificed, than

the goal of creating quality jobs. Although it is difficult to define or

measure the quality of the jobs which have resulted, there has been no lack

of effort in improving quality. For a YCCIP program in Hartford, CETA

professionals are auditing worksites to see that training is being done.

Enrollees are being tested for skill development. The Greene County CETA

staff visited the Employment Service to locate good supervisors; the

Employment Service, in a spirit of cooperation, is providing the supervisors
with training. Sonoma, Santa Clara, San Francisco, Oakland, and Marin

County are all carefully monitoring worksites, observing work, and

interviewing enrollees and supervisors alike.

A constant eye over the shoulder may guarantee that there is a

concern for quality, but it takes specific program features to translate

the concern into actual results. One of the characteristic approaches to

achieving program quality is by providing complete packages of services to

youths. In a number of prime sponsorships, this has been marked by a shift

away from traditional work experience. In-school youth are receiving a

broad range of career development experiences that augment selected work

experiences. Both Lane County and Portland's YETP programs have less than

15 percent of their actual enrollments in work experience. Portland puts

out-of-schoolers into work experience, but only as a provisional measare.

The principal emphasis is on obtaining some kind of high school certification.

Continued work experience is contingent upon enrollment and attendance in a

GED or equivalent program.

Prime sponsors in Michigan have shown a similar awareness of the

larger purposes of work experience in YETP and YCCIP. Under YETP, local

sponsors are coplementing work experience with job information, counseling

and placement services, to ease the youths' transition to the workforce.

One of the more surprising developments has been the widespread

s'.ipplemertatior. of YCCIP jobs with a variety of non-work services. In

spite of the small 5 percent limit on overhead (that discouraged many

potential *,,ogram deliverers from even applying for projects), work

experience is oeing augmented with a variety of services. In Detroit,

Wayne State University runs a YCCIP project in which it is providing basic

training to raise the educational level of program participants. Half the

enrollees in a YCCIP rehabilitation project are enrolled in a GED program

or continuing education program. Although they do not receive academic

credit for work, they are being paid while they attend class.

One exceptional YCCIP project in Sonoma has youths working four

days a week and attending class one day a week. The work is described as

manual labor. The classes are in agriculture and maintenance work.

Enrollees are receiving three units of work experience and five units of

academic credit from a local junior college. The project, originally

aiming to place one-half its participants in unsubsidized employment by

September, has exceeded its target. Fully 60 percent of the original

participants have left their minimum wage slots and found unsubsidized jobs.

Another YCCIP project, also in Sonoma, places enrollees in a seven

month program of work experience and education. Youths spend about 32 hours

a week caring for comnunity gardens, pruning trees, installing sprinkler

systems, landscaping, setting flower beds, and doing maintenance. The rest

of the time is spent in horticulture, gardening, and landscaping classes

sponsored by the County schools. Here too, the work pays minimum wage.

Although some enrollees have said they could find higher paying jobs

elsewhere, they are staying for the training and certificate that will be

awarded upon completion.

c)r)
- 12-

Several Michigan prime sponsors are augmenting YCCIP experience

with "employability" training and vocational training. One of the Oregon

Balance of State projects had YCCIP supervisors trained in counseling so

that they could provide more support to enrollees on the job, as well as

some skill training adapted to enrollee needs.

A Boston YCCIP landscaping project is offering a range of supportive

services that center around building self-esteem and improving attitudes.

Classroom training is also provided. Another YCCIP project in Worcester,

enrolling drop-outs with acute skill shortages and social' adjustment

problems, starts each day with classroom training in a local adult learning

center. The cash income for participating in the YCCIP auxillary services

is a feature, however, that may mask the true degree of interest that youths

have in those services. El Paso runs a YCCIP project for in-school youth

only with classes that involve career exploration and self-awareness.

Enrollees there are not paid for class time. In its first month of

operation, the El Paso project experienced a 10 percent decline in enrollment.

The services and support being provided for YCCIP participants are

above and beyond the requirements of YEDPA. However, prime sponsors see an

acute need for something more than work. They see the legislation as being

restrictive, discouraging services to a class of participants -- mostly

economically disadvantaged school-leavers -- who need them the most.

Virtually all of the prime sponsors are targeting most, if not all (see

Table 2, Page 23), their YCCIP slots to economically disadvantaged youths,

who are acutely in need of more than just an income and work that may have

some transferrable skills to later employment. Some participants in a

maintenance project, for example, could not read tape measures. High

quality work experience will not benefit them if it is offered without some

opportunity for basic education.

Many prime sponsors are offering YCCIP enrollees the extra training

or education opportunities they need to ensure that participation really

will improve long-term prospects for employment. But it is a constant

struggle requiring first of all, a will to do more than the legislation

requires, and a Lpnsiderable amount of resource juggling. In the words of

one counselor, "jw/e just don't have the flexibility or range of options with

the YCCIF projects that we do under YETP or Title I ... it's just a one-shot

deal. Sure we can give a dropout a job, but I'm not sure whether these kids

are any better off when the project's over." (Bonnie Snedeker, Page 1-5).

The award of academic credit for work experience has been seen

as a mechanism sweetening the incentives for participants to work, and

forcing educators and manpower administrators to pay more attention to job

quality. Where academic credit is being awarded, these two objectives are

being met with varying degrees of success. Where academic credit is not

being awarded, there is good evidence of a need for more flexible

accomodation between the CETA and LEA establishments.

Academic credit is being awarded this school year in both YCCIP

and YETP. Ninety-five in-school YETP enrollees in Charlotte are participating

in a vocational training-work experience-academic enrichment program that is

24
- 13-

granting one-half elective credit for the spring semester. A full credit

will be granted for a year's participation (13 credits are required for

graduation). YETP in-school and out-of-school participants in Sonoma,

San Francisco, Marin, and Santa Clara are receiving academic credit for

their work experience. A YCCIP project run by public schools in. the Lansing

Consortium is offering academic credit for work performed in conjunction

with a high school ecology course. Nearly all YETP enrollees in the

Washington-Oregon case study are receiving academic credit this year for

work experience. Next year, officials in some program; are hoping to be

able to petition successfully for credit in academic areas.

Most program enrollees, however, are not yet receiving academic

credit for their work. The reasons vary. In some cases, programs started

too late for arrangements to be made. In North Carolina, state regulations

governing the award of academic credit are stringent. Although it can be

done, as the Charlotte prime sponsor demonstrated, arranging credit for

work experience will take more time than sponsors had in the rush for

implementation. The Springfield schools in Clark County are moving very

cautiously in awarding academic credit for work. They want to do it, but

they also want to be sure that any arrangements will stand up to the

scrutiny of the board of education, the state education department and

regional accreditation associations. In Columbus, prime sponsor administrators

are not sure who should arrange academic credit or how it should be done.

Greene County, a third prime sponsor in Ohio, has actually contacted state

level educators. As was the case with Clark County, program officials

have received little useful guidance. However, Greene County observers

infer that state educators view YEDPA and the manpower community with some

suspicion, and that getting the blessings of state educators from accredited

work experience, will take more effrrL. A Connecticut Balance of State

contractor serving out-of-school youth h&: not attempted to secure academic

ere it bec7...se there is so little curccIA for it among the enrollees. The

Grand Rapid prime has not succeeded in getting academic credit awarded

for this year's projects. But in mid-April, it laid down a requirement

that all YCCIP and CTP contractors develop a plan and schedule for

rr-arhing agreements with LEAs by June 30th.

Although inertia, red tape, and timing problems have all

undermined some of the efforts to get academic credit for work experience,

there is also affirmative resistance to the notion. Some of the resistance

can be traced to skepticism about whether work experience can be treated

as a legitimate learning experience. LEA officials in North Carolina

have stipulated that credit will be awarded only for strictly supervised

work experience that involves fonnal training, is related to a participant's

vocational track, and permits academic supervision. In the Connecticut

Balance of State prime sponsorship, academic credit is not being awarded

for some projects which provide training considered below the par of

what might be expected as part of a high school course.

Resistance to awarding academic credit is also based more on

what might be described as matters of principle. In Grc.nd Rapids a school

official said that students already receive academic credit for such a

great number of activities that educators have problems keeping them in
- 14-

school long enough to meet their basic educational needs." (Peter Kobrak,

Page C-17). Detroit school officials echoed the sentiments, stating in

their YETP application that paid work experience would be incentive enough

for enrollee participation and success. A Durham-Orange school principal

suggested that the best way drop-outs could secure acaddmic credit would

be by returning to school.

The second year of operation for the YETP and YCCIP activities

ought to see more cases of academic credit being awarded for work experience.

Prime sponsors and LEAs alike are pursuing the matter. With tne benefit of

more planning time, they should succeed. However, no matter how much time

there is for making arrangements, there will probably be some areas where

resistance does not break down. It remains to be seen whether the absence

of academic credit will be decisive in determining program success or

failure in those few areas. It is clear, however, that, on.the whole,

the emphasis on gaining academic credit was taken seriously by prime

sponsors. Arrangements for credit have been far more prevalent than under

earlier CETA activities, and some of them appear to be sound models for

future efforts.

Supervision and Work Quality

Many of the past youth programs have been plagued with poor

on-site supervision for young workers. Supervisors have been insensitive

to the needs -- and ignorance -- of young workers making their first

contact with the world of work. Supervisors were frequently ill-equipped

to provide any significant skill training and, in some cases, supervisors

did not enforce even minimal rules of work -- showing up at work on tine,

or working a full day, for example. The problems have been a.ctributable to

a number of factors. Historically, supervision has been considered as an

afterthought. Little allowance was made for the costs of providing

supervision for extra youth workers added on to existing workforces.

Little thought was given to the special demands of supervising youths, as

new entrants to the labor force.

Responding to these shortcomings, YEDPA has put a premium on

quality supervision, and provided some resources to encourage it. As

is the case of the overall emphasis on quality, prime sponsors welcome

the accent, and have responded in many different ways.

Prime sponsors are trying first to find qualified supervisors,

or, lacking that, to train them. An Oregon Balance of State operator

delayed start up on a solar heating project until some competent, incomeeligible Title VI supervisors could be found and trained in counseling

techniques. The Muskegon Consortium is requiring special training for all

youth supervisors next year. A Kitsap County YCCIP project reduced youth

work schedule:: to thirty hours per week so that there would be enough

money to pay qualified supervisors.
- 15-

Prime sponsors are also making an effort to maintain good supervisory

quality by monitoring worksites. In Muskegon, the work experience contractors

are providing on-site supervision. Each contractor is also providing a

roving supervisor to tackle problems that on-site supervisors are not able

to handle. Kitsap County is encouraging better supervision by using

competency-based learning plans on the worksites. They have had the effect

of forcing supervisors to pay more attention to the work youths are doing,

and focusing job duties on training objectives. The Kitsap prime sponsor

staff also carries on a rigorous monitoring schedule and maintains close

contact with supervisors.

Supervisor loads vary to some extent, between YETP and YCCIP

activities. Because of this, simple supervisor/worker ratios do not reflect

the real quality of supervision. YCCIP activities usually center around

projects that cannot be integrated with work already being done. Because

tasks are usually similar, if not identical, YCCIP sites frequently lend

themselves to a team approach, utilizing somewhat lower supervisor/worker

ratios, than YETP projects. But these ratios have in no way hindered the

quality of work or the value of the experience for enrollees. One YCCIP

project in Charlotte consisted of a supervisor and team of nine youths working

on housing rehabilitation. The supervisor, a construction engineer with

experience as a superintendent, was sensitive to the needs of the participants

and had developed an esprit de corps. Another project that puts lower income

youth with criminal records to work weeding, eliminating fire hazards, and

cleaning ditches has two supervisors for a crew of fourteen enrollees.

The project has been extraordinarily successful. Another project with a

supervisor for every four or six enrollees has not been nearly as successful

in retaining enrollees. The smaller teams in that project may mean less

peer interaction. But the project also suffers from oversell. The jobs,

although no more menial than other YCCIP projects, were sold to the trainees

as being more glamorous than they really are.

The YETP programs present a different situation. Youths are

frequently integrated with ongoing workforces. While the number of YETP

participants assigned a supervisor is frequently low -- one to three -- the

quality of supervision does not appear to be as good. Existing staff with

little supervisor experience is often used. Employers have occasionally

assigned youths to supervisors who have been unwilling and sometimes

unqualified. Even where the number of YETP participants added to a worksite

is small, the reported ratios do not reflect the real supervisory workload.

Supervisors also are responsible for regular employees, diminishing the

attention available for a youth worker.

Whatever the relative edge of YCCIP project supervision may be

over YETP supervision, supervision under both programs seems to be good.

Some local observers think the supervision in YEDPA programs is superior

to earlier youth work experience projects. Youths have appreciated the

emphasis on quality supervision, and supervisors have found youths to

adjust well to the demands of the job.
- 16-

Obstacles to Quality Jobs

In their attempts to develop quality jobs for youth, prime sponsors

have found themselves stymied at times. The early rush to develop a large

quantity of slots made it difficult for local officials to develop quality

slots. A Grand Rapids administrator bemoaned the federally-imposed

quantitative and qualitative standards. A planner in Lansing Consortium

complained about the lack of detail that employing agencies provided in

their position descriptions, and the plantation mentality behind employing

agencies accepting work experience candidates without ever knowing precisely

where the youths could work best and gain the most.

The emphasis on public sector and private non-profit sector

employment is cited as another barrier to creating "meaningful" jobs that

would leave youths with genuinely marketable skills. Sponsors agree that

most employment opportunities are in the private sector. The career interests

of most youths center around the kinds of jobs found chiefly in the private

sector. Yet regulations and the presumptive role of government agencies

and community based organizations serve to effectively restrict all but a few youth jobs to public service work experience. "The challenge ... has

been to find jobs in non-profit agencies suited to the vocational

preferences of the participants -- 'it's not easy to find auto mechanic

jobs in the YMCA,' one counselor noted." (R. C. Smith, Page H-6).

The last criticism'is the most serious. It is one that extra

time will not eliminate. It is not clear that prime sponsors wouldlfiave

the access to private sector opportunities, even if YEDPA permitted it;

but the comments of program administrators seem to imply a willingness to

attempt some private sector job development.

Career Aspirations for Youth

One of the mandates of YEDPA -- stressed repeatedly in the

legislation and by the Department of Labor -- is the importance of "meaningful"

jobs. One of the criteria of a "meaningful" job has been the relevance of

work experience to the career aspirations of youths.

The legislative history of YEDPA, the law itself, and promulgations

from the Department of Labor are sprinkled with references to the importance

of linking the career goals of youths, with their work experience under

YEDPA. The rationale has been two-fold: give young adults a taste of the

career areas in which they are interested, and provide them with jobspecific experience and skills they can take with them.

The emphasis, while a logical,and appropriate one in some cases,

has its drawbacks. It is based squarely on the assumption that youths have

a clear idea of what their career goals are, and that the knowledge is a

solid basis for action in arranging job assignments.

23
- 17-

In fact, many youths have not given a great 0Edi of thougnt to

what they want to do for a living. YEDPA jobs are the first jobs for an

enormous number of enrollees. Many of those who are thinking ahead, do not

have realistic expectations about what they would like to do, and do not

have clear ideas of how they should go about doing what they want to do.

In these cases, some of the programs are proving to be effective eye

openers. But prime sponsors remain skeptical as to how realistic some

of the more ambitious goals may be. Counselors and CETA staff alike

indicate that many youths take the YCCIP and YETP jobs just for the money,

and not because the jobs fit into career plans. For the youths who do

have career plans, many are plainly unrealistic, or the youths do not have

a good sense for what is required to achieve them. One youth hoping to

start college soon was reading at a second grade level. Another, a

sophomore working in an animal hospital, had no idea what he wanted to

do. Many have separated the job at hand from career aspirations. One

aspiring trumpet player wanted more hours at his "janitor helper" job;

not because it was career relevant, but because he needed money. Another

seventeen year old employed picking up paper and cleaning washrooms in

a park, wants to be a registered nurse or a model. She presumably values

the job for the money, and the money alone. As she put it, "I think that

if I had YETP program I would keep theory out because it don't make sense."

(sic) (Myron Roomkin, Page G-11). Art eighteen year old who wants to be

a basketball palyer works as a custodian aid in parks. The program does

not do much for his basketball game, but he thinks it is great because

it provides him with money, and keeps him off the street and out of trouble.

Some of the youths are not so specific about their career plans.

When some participants in Georgia were questioned about future plans, they

were fairly vague, indicating where they wanted to live and whether they

wanted to go to college. Some indicated they wanted to take up trades, but

they were not sure which ones.

Although many students going into the programs do not have clear

career plans, they do attach some value to the work experience. For the

few with some specific ideas, the programs may be succeeding in gelling

their thoughts. For one student who had worked in several jobs, her YETP

work experience as a tutor has inspired her to become a teacher. The

young adults in a Sonoma landscaping project pass up the opportunities for

higher paying jobs just so they can get certified training and experience

in their YCCIP project.

Few people seriously presume that a 16 year old youth has mapped

out hard and fast career plans. For that reason, some prime sponsors are

not giving a great deal of attention to matching jobs with the career

interests of enrollees. However, the changeability of career plans does

encourage prime sponsors to give considerable attention to career

exploration activities so that youths are, in fact, exposed to valid

information and can formulate some realistic career goals. Although

participants may come into the programs with nothing more than an interest

in money, sponsors are providing auxillary services to assure that they

leave with more than that. "The counselors see their jobs as helping to

20
- 18 -

turn the kids away from an immediate focus and on to career development."

(Bonnie Snedeker, Page H-7).

There seems to be a widespread feeling among prime sponsors that

youths have not given much serious thought to career plans. Because of

that, many youths apparently are not attaching a great significance to

their work. But, the strategy that is emerging, is one of using work

experience together with vocational exploration programs, as a vehicle for

starting youths in the process of thinking about long-term career plans.

The cases like the DeKalb County girl who, before her job, "... didn't

know accounting could be so much fun," (Gretchen Maclachlan, Page 0-11),

but has now decided to take up accounting in college, are icing on the cake.

Youth Participation

The Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act tries to

carry national youth employment and training policies one step further than

in the past, by expanding the youth role beyond that of mere participant.

The only binding requirements on prime sponsors to assure representation

of the youth perspective are a legislative requirement mandating the

establishment of youth councils and DOL regulations requiring youth membership

on the councils. But in the vein of other federal efforts that now

encourage target group participation, YEDPA is encouraging direct youth

involvement in aspects of program operation and evaluation.

Prime sponsors have responded to the letter of the law. Of

course, it is too early to make final judgments about the effects of the

new youth role -- the adjustments require time for both the youths and the

adults on the councils. But so far, the accomplishments have been mixed.

In a few cases, the effect of youth involvement on planning councils has

been significant; but usually, it is not. The youths themselves frequently

do not participate. Where they do, the participation is more form than

substance. Another serious impediment to a substantive youth role, is

the limited policy impact of the councils themselves. They are frequently

not the forums for real policymaking decisions.

In light of the limited utility of youth representation on the

council, some prime sponsors, responding to the spirit of the law, are trying

alternative channels for bringing youth into the mainstream of decisionmaking.

Some of these alternative approaches to gaining youth input show ingenuity,

and promise to enhance the chance for substantive contributions.

Selecting Youth as Members on the Youth Advisory Councils

Prime sponsors are using one of two methods for selecting youth

members for their youth advisory councils. They either select youths who

are representative of the target population, or they select youths displaying
- 19 -

leadership qualities that set them above the norm. In the latter case some

primes choose only YETP or YCCIP participants while others are being less

restrictive.

The method of selection seems to be a necessary, but not sufficient

condition for determining the roles that youths play. Where youths have

been selected strictly because they are representative of program

participants, they are proving to be ineffective. Many of them are shy

and withdrawn, intimidated by the adults and overwhelmed by the complexity

of matters before the council. If they are not uninterested, they are

typically passive. In Charlotte, youth members are rarely in attendance

and are having a difficult time communicating with the adult members of

the council, most of whom are professionals. The San Francisco youth

council, which is three-fourths youth (drawn from youth programs in the

area) has a difficult time assembling a quorum for its meetings because of

absenteeism.

Random selection of youth members has not achieved any decree of

useful youth input. Handpicking participants is producing better results,

but is no guarantee that youth members will be active. Alamance County

CETA officials and school administrators carefully selected the youth

members. But the youths all lost interest and either dropped out or otherwise

became inactive. On the second round, the prime sponsor decided to elicit

volunteers. The response was good and the prime sponsor picked those

appearing most capable and interested. Alamance County stands, now, as one

of the more successful examples of youth participation.

Kitsap County and Atlanta have both found articulate and hardworking youth members. They are active in their own right, and the Kitsap

County standout, although not a program enrollee, is actively encouraging

a larger voice for participants in finding out which programs work and why.

Chicago, Cook County and Rockford tried a variety of approaches

to pick outstanding program participants for council membership. Although

attendance is good, none is experiencing any notable success with its

youth representatives. Kalamazoo extended invitations to youths who were

recommended by the main program contractor. Attendance is poor. Muskegon

based its selection on recommendations from school principals, student

governments, and council members. The youth do make some comments, but

contributions are not considered to be appreciable. Lansing, on the other

hand, having selected one youth from each of its out-of-school and inschool programs, is having some degree of success. Attendance is good, but

it is not clear what substantive contributions are being made.

Interest in Achieving Genuine Youth Participation

Virtually no prime sponsor considers the youth councils to be

the best way to achieve youth participation. But, the sponsors who consider

youth involvement to be an important goal are inclined to explore alternative
modes of involvement, rather than spending much effort on improving council

activities.

In the Portland prime sponsorship, where youth members of the

council are not active, counselors and area managers are taking the time

to talk with the participants. The views are then being channeled back

to program planners who are incorporating some of the ideas into the

decisionmaking process.

When the first crop of youth members stopped participating in the

Alamance youth council, administrators tried a different selection process

that produced a more interested group. But, the prime sponsor is also

allowing a broader kind of participation for youths. Instead of just

reviewing program plans, they are also involved in participant counsellng

and problem-solving.

The prime sponsors in Michigan are notable for the consensus

evident there, that youth membership in advisory councils is not likely to

have much impact on final decisions. "None of the prime sponsors are

relying with any conviction on youth to play a major role ... as envisioned

by some of YEDPA's congressional sponsors. The knowledge required to

follow such policy discussions appears to be simply beyond the grasp of

these young people regardless of their relationship to CETA and YEDPA."

(Peter Kobrak, Page C-22). The councils are seen as poor forums for youth

involvement. The prime sponsors there, however, are exploring alternative

approaches to youth participation. The key to the alternative approaches

to seeking the youth perspective "... is their emphasis on obtaining

feedback from youth rather than opinions on what the overall program should

or should not be. The latter assumes a policy orientation and an ability

to conceptualize abstractly that seem almost the antithesis of what one could legitimately expect most youth -- no less disadvantaged youth -- to

bring to decision making sessions." (Peter Kobrak, Page C-23).

Other important adaptations are being made outside the councils.

The Grand Rapids public schools are setting up grievance committees to

hear participant complaints. The prime sponsor will be questioning

participants to get their views on program quality and impact. Contractors

for the other three prime sponsors intend to conduct similar surveys. A

number of other agencies have already circulated questionnaires to survey

youth responses so far and to record their suggestions for program changes.

The Lansing Consortium has already incorporated survey results into its

1979 planning process.

The feeling that the councils are of limited usefulness in getting

youth views is widespread. "A spokesman for a Cook County LEA emphasized

that YETP kids are distinguishable from their age cohort in ways likely

to reduce their council participation." (Myron Roomkin, Page G-14).

Chicago and Rockford CETA staffers survey youths for their views by

pulling them out of the council setting.

Prime sponsors are also broadening opportunities for youth

involvement by putting them in integral program roles. Cook County I -s put young adults to work as youth placement counselors and job developers

32
- 21 -

in the (successful) Chicago Heights Youth Employment Service. Greene

County (Ohio) is thinking about hiring youths as peer counselors. A

Connecticut Balance of State YCCIP project employs a YETP participant as

a secretary, involved in day-to-day administration of the project.

Skepticism notwithstanding, some of the prime sponsors are still

trying to improve the quality of youth participation on the councils.

Muskegon is considering a proposal to have representatives from student

governments in all the schools, join the council. In Kalamazoo the youth

council chairman and the CETA staff director have taken steps to increase

the council's input for the FY 1979 youth plans. In an ambitious ground-up

program review planning process, the council succeeded in fonaulating

strategies and setting priorities. The final impact remains to be seen.

A Shift in Emphasis?

As a rule, the effect of youth participation on the youth advisory

councils is limited. The youth councils, like the full councils, are not

particularly effective in their own right. Furthermore, youths do not seem

inclined or equipped to participate on the councils to any great extent.

But prime sponsors are adopting other modes of involvement that seem

eminently more practical, and are geared to getting youth views on what

youths know best: the programs that have been established for them.

There is no single model for this improved involvement. But the

variety of approaches all seem to be responses to the mandate that prime

sponsors encourage an active role for youths in helping to assess programs

and steer future policy.

Tar_g_etin1

YEDPA is a targeted effort aimed specifically at young adults.

Within that broad target group, there are some specific sub-targets

identified by congressional sponsors and the Department of Labor. YCCIP

is aimed at 16-19 year old youths who are out of work. YETP is intended

for unemployed and underemployed youths from families whose current gross

family income is less than 85 percent of the BLS lower living standard.

Up to 10 percent of YETP enrollees can be from families exceeding the income

threshold, if they are part of an experimental, mixed income group.

Additionally, prime sponsors have been encouraged to identify significant

segments of the target population for special attention.

The targeting provisions leave prime sponsors with a fair amount

of latitude in selecting youths to serve. The flexibility is intended to

permit prime sponsors to better adapt youth programs to the participation

needs of each sponsor area. The hope at the national level consistently

has been, however, that prime sponsors would serve those youths most in

need, that is, those youths with the least chance of finding assistance

from other sources.
-22-

In considering the issue of how prime sponsors are targeting their

services, three topics are most important. (1) the actual breakdown of

enrollments, (2) how prime sponsors identify target groups, and (3) how

effective the income criteria are.

Enrollment Breakdowns

Data on enrollments are still incomplete for YEDPA. The most

recent data available when the case studies were prepared, were for the

quarter ending March 31, 1978. Unfortunately, many prime sponsor activities

were barely off the ground at that point, and most reflect only partial

enrollments. The data available are tabulated in Tables 2 and 3.

Two trends are evident from data available so far. First, prime

sponsors are concentrating on serving economically disadvanted youths

(youths from families whose income is 70 percent of the BLS lower living

standard, or less). This holds for both YETP, with a 85 percent lower living

standard threshold, and YCCIP, with income criteria. The decision to

concentrate on this group reflects deliberate decisions in almost all cases

to serve youths most in need of the YEDPA services. Prime sponsors also

recognize the political risks of widening the focus.

However, two factors militate against prime sponsors focusing

exclusively on economically disadvantaged youth. There is an interest in

broadening participation, so that youth programs are not stigmatized as

a "poverty program." In a few areas, prime sponsors are also having

difficulty filling their slots with economically disadvantaged youth. In

areas such as Marin County, prime sponsors claim that there are few

youths from economically disadvantaged families. However, the incidence

of poverty is not necessarily a reliable indicator of how much prime

sponsors target for lower income groups. For example, Cobb County, with

a lower incidence of poverty than Atlanta, has a higher proportion of

extremely poor youths enrolled in its programs.

A second, very predictable targeting pattern (not reported in

the available data) is the emphasis on serving in-school youths with YETP

and out-of-school youth with YCCIP. There are deviations from this

pattern, however. They appear to be more a function of institutional

factors than economic factors (youth unemployment, for example). The

YCCIP project in Albuquerque is closely tied to the LEA. There, in-schoolers

outnumber out-of-schoolers by a ratio of more than five to one. A similar

situation exists in Lansing, although the imbalance is not quite so acute.

Identifying Target Groups for Special Attention

There are few surprises to the outreach efforts that prime

sponsors make. The Employment Service and the schools are usually used for

locating students and enrolling them. As a rule, it appears as though
YETP YCCIP

Table 2

Enrollments

Income as a % of BLS

Lower Living Standard

Income as a % of BLS

Lower Livi ng Standard

by

Family Income <70% 70-85% I .:70% 70-85%

California

Mari n

Oakland

Santa Clara/San Jose

San Francisco

Sonoma

Connecticut

BOS 83% 11% 58% 5%

Hartford Consortium NA NA NA NA Waterbury 100%(a) 0% 100%

Georgia

BOS 90% 10% NA NA Atlanta 76% 24% 61% 39%

Cobb County 84% 16% 76% 7%

DeKalb County 75% 25% NA NA

Illinois

Chicago 100% 0%

Cook County 79% 21%

Rockford 60% 21% 67% 13%

Massachusetts

Boston

Eastern Middlesex

Worcester

100%

93%

93%

0%

7%

7%

94%

93%

6%

7%

Michigan

Detroit

Grand Rapids 99% 1% 85% 15%

Kalamazoo County 86% 14% 67% 0%

Lansing Tri -County 84% 9% 68% NA Muskegon

New Mexico

Albuquerque 100% 0% 100%

North Carolina

BOS 88% 12% 64% 36%

Alamance County 88% 12% 96% 6%

Charlotte 85% 15% 94% 6%

Durham-Orange County 96% 4% 90% 10%

Ohio

Clark County 100%(a) 97%(a)

Columbus-Franklin

Greene County

93%

1000/

83%.

0% 1074(a)

Oregon

BOS

Lane County

Portland

68%

86%

91%

23%

14%

9%

100% NA

85%

0%

NA

15%

Texas

Coastal Bend

El Paso

89%

78%

7%

22%

NA

100% NA

0%

_Washington

Kitsap County

(a) At or below the 85% level.

100% 0% NA NA No further breakdown available.
Table 3

Enrollments by Sex

YETP YCCIP

Male Female Total Male Female Total

California

Marin

Oakland

Santa Clara/San Jose

San Francisco

Sonoma

Connecticut

BOS

Hartford Consortium

Waterbury

154NA

64

148NA

69

302NA

133

98NA

10 42NA

10 140NA

20

Georgia

BOS

Atlanta

144

319

155

467

299

786

9

70

18

38

27

108

Cobb County

DeKalb County

36

38

34

62

70

151

26 14 40

Illinois

Chicago

Cook County

(47%)

(51%)

53%)

49%)

(a)

(a)

(61%)

(90%)

(39%)

(10%)

(a)

Rockford (52%) 48%) (a) (98%) ( 2%) (a)

Massachusetts

Boston

Eastern Middlesex

Worcester

Michigan

Detroit

Grand Rapids 386 355 741 21 6 27

Kalamazoo County 58 43 101 3 3 6

Lansing Tri-County 330 315 645 40 7 47

Muskegon

New Mexico

Albuquerque 39 52 91 42 12 54

North Carolina

BOS 3789 3212 7001 186 36 222

Alamance County 78 91 169 11 7 18

Charlotte 86 164 250 17 1 18

Durham-Orange County 66 81 147 18 3 21

Ohio

Clark County 108 72 180 22 7 29

Columbus-Franklin 214 227 441 88 11 99

Greene County 2 11 13 5 0 5 Oregon

BOS 146 119 265 17 4 21

Lane County 17 109 126 18 4 22

Portland 84 129 213 I 4 9 13

Texas

Coastal Bend

El Paso

91

166

108

214

199

380

NA

35 NA

0 NA35

Washington

Kitsap County

(a) Numerical breakdowns not

available.

20 31 57 I 9 4 13

3
-25-

community based organizations enjoy little discernible edge over the more

traditional outreach and enrollment services, in penetrating particular

population subgroups.

The extent to which prime sponsors zero in on significant segments

of the youth population varies. Some are not identifying any groups for

special attention. Others have come up with specific numerical targets.

Hartford is reserving 50 percent of its YETP slots for women, 7 percent for

handicapped, and 15 percent for persons with limited speaking ability.

Clark County is reserving 90 percent of the slots in one particular project

for youth offenders. These programs are still getting underway, so those

figures may represent just good intentions. But some prime sponsors have

actually succeeded in enrolling youths who have been underrepresented in

the past. Four percent of the Lansing YETP enrollees are handicapped. In

Lane County the figure is 3.3 percent. In Kitsap it is nearly 9 percent.

Youth offenders comprise 7 percent of the YETP enrollments in Lansing,

and nearly 25 percent in Lane County.

Youths from AFDC families are also frequent targets for special

emphasis. In some areas they comprise more than half the YETP and YCCIP

enrollees. In Grand Rapids, nearly two out of three of YETP enrollees are

members of families receiving AFDC.

Females are still being given short shrift in some areas. Although

they are well represented in most YETP programs, they are almost universally

underrepresented in YCCIP. Where sex breakdowns were complete, YCCIP

projects were typically enrolling fewer than 1 female for every 3 males.

Some areas have especially poor records, with females outnumbered more than

5 to 1. The pattern reflects the high incidence of manual labor jobs.,

jobs which have traditionally excluded women. The high ratio of males Lo

females also reflects the fact that YCCIP is concentrating on the high

school dropout population -- a male-dominated group. Breakdowns of the

YCCIP applicant pool are not available, however, so this presumption must

remain untested.

Verifying Eligibility

Although prime sponsors do have some maneuvering room with

respect to income eligibility, they are of course required to check certain

minimal requirements and make some effort at validating eligibility data.

In fact there are no uniform procedures for doing this. Some prime

sponsors rely almost exclusively on the income data provided by the youths

themselves. In Atlanta, the income data that youths report directly to

intake specialists are accepted without further examination. Cobb County

takes a similar approach, corroborating eligibility only for AFDC recipients.

In Chicago and Cook County, contractors operate their own intake

services, so control is diffuse and sometimes nonexistent. Representatives

of the Chicago Board of Education did not realize they were supposed to

verify income eligibility. Their attitude was that it was not their

problem.
- 26-

In some areas, great pains are being taken to use reliable data

and to certify it as being valid data. Rockford verifies data with W-2 forms,

check stubs and public assistance caseload information. Prime sponsors in

California check school records and records on file with agencies such as

local employment offices and welfare offices. Grand Rapids uses data such

as welfare records, and occasionally resorts to asking parents for tax

returns.

With even the tightest screening procedures, though, ineligibles

can get through if they try hard enough. As one CBO staffer explained:

"It's amazing how many kids have family incomes that are five dollars below

the income ceiling." (Peter Kobrak, Page C-32). This is why some prime

sponsors are inclined to place a heavy reliance on schools for doing

screening; expecially in small towns. "As an intake agent, the LEA

probably offers the best control on eligibility compliance, since teachers

and counselors are generally aware of students' financial circumstances."

(Myron Roomkin, Page G-18).

But the necessity of the income criterion is sometimes questioned

as well as the validity. As one CBO planner said: "What parents make is

no longer determining what happens to the kids; drugs, crime, alcoholism, and

lack of character are increasingly crossing class lines." (Peter Kobrak,

Page C-33). A counselor noted "... that the program emphasis on training,

career development, and self-help is not exactly geared to the needs of

middle class kids looking for easy ways to get extra spending money."

(Bonnie Snedeker, Page I-11). The implication is that there is a degree

of self-screening that goes on. Just as important as the questionable need for strict eligibility

determination, is the questionable validity of the data that is collected.

It is difficult, expensive and time consuming to verify data. There is

also uncertainty about how to handle youths who live alone, head a household, are not claimed as dependents by parents or move from one guardian,

foster parent, or family to another.

The income eligibility guidelines can present bothersome hitches

in the intake process in some balance of state operations or the sprawling

consortia that straddle metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Coastal

Bend encompasses the city of Corpus Christi and twelve rural counties in

Texas. Under YETP youths are eligible to participate if they are unemployed

or underemployed, or come from a low income family. In determining whether

youths are underemployed, intake specialists use the poverty level

criterion established by the Office of Management and Budget. In determining

whether youths are from low income families, the 85 percent of the lower

living standard criterion, developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is

used. The two standards vary unevenly, making different adjustments for

metropolitan (or nonfarm) and nonmetropolitan (farm) areas. The BLS

standard makes some adjustments for regional variations, while the OMB

standard does not. If the criteria are taken seriously, the administrative

difficulties can be cumbersome. One administrator conplained that "it is

very difficult to juggle all of these variables -- especially out in the

field." (Vernon Briggs, Page B-15).

3s
- 27 -

Substitution

YEDPA has important value as a demonstration effort and as a

tool for accomplishing some institutional change. The hope is that an

investment now will yield future payoffs in more productive programs. But

the programmatic emphasis on creating jobs and training opportunities for

youth now, cannot be ovel-stated. YEDPA is an employment program that was passed partly in response to higher youth unemployment rates in general,

and the alarming jobless, rates for nonwhite youths, especially.

As ambitious as YEDPA is, it is small relative to the scale of

the youth population and unemployment problems. There are more than

18 million youths in the 16-24 age bracket, and more than two and a half

million of them are unemployed. The rest are working or out of the labor

force. YEDPA is expected to serve about 300,000 youths in its first year.

Because of the limited impact it could have under the best of conditions,

Congress and the Department of Labor have taken steps to focus programs

where they will have the greatest net effects. Targeting by employment

status and income offers some assurances that YEDPA services and jobs

will go to those more in need and to those less likely to have alternative

sources of assistance.

But targeting alone does not maximize impact. There is also a

concern that the YEDPA resources should add on to the institutional

provisions already benefiting youth, and not simply substitute for what

is already being provided. To the extent that YEDPA resources replace

CETA Title I money that sponsors would have earmarked for youth, or replace

LEA resources that are already available, the at addition to youth

resources is negligible. For these reasons, t.ere are legislative

provisions and departmental regulations dnd directives that limit prime

sponsors if they try to cut back on Title services already being provided

to youth, and backfilling with YEDPA resources. YEDPA states that YCCIP

and YETP are intended to be "supplementari to but not replacing

opportunities available under Title I of tnil: act." (Sections 331 and

341 of YEDPA). Regulations, and directives 3p1i out in further detail

the level of effort that sponsors must maintain in serving youth under

other parts of CETA.

Prime sponsors are also being encouraged to maximize the impact

of the limited YCCIP and YETP resources by piggybacking the extra

administrative chores on agents already in place, by coupling the YCCIP

and YETP support network with support networks available under other CETA

activities and through local government agencies, and by tapping non-CETA

resources wherever they are available.

Factors Diminishing the Impact of YEDPA

The original design for this interim report included a focus on

learning about whether prime sponsors are "substituting" YEDPA resources for
- 28 -

Title I resources that had previously been supporting youth activities.

The methodology consisted of determining whether prime sponsors were

maintaining the same level and the same mix of Title I services to youth

between January 1 and March 31, 1978, as they had in the same period during

1977 (the interval established by the Department of Labor as the base

period). For prime sponsors whose Title I funding decreased, the "same

level of services" constituted an equal proportion of youth being served.

For those whose funding remained the same or increased, the "same level

of services" meant an equal number of youth being served.

Problems were encountered and issues emerged, however, that

undercut the validity of that crude methodology, and refocused attention

on some other areas where substitution was emerging in different guises.

Based on the sketchy data that were available for analysis, prime

sponsors are not using the newly available youth resources to substitute,

for services they were previously providing to youth under Title I. In

some areas like Oregon Balance of State, Portland, and Boston, the number

of youth served under Title I dropped, but the proportion of Title I youth

recipients did not. This was due to reductions in Title I allocations.

Boston experienced an especially sharp reduction in its Title I allocation.

To fill the void left by the cut, the regional office granted permission

to swita over much of Boston's Title I services that had been going to

youth, to funding under YETP. Consequently, the only identifiable impact

attributable to YETP has been the centralized intake office (still to be

established) and the LEA activities that were newly established. Charlotte

was another prime experiencing a Title I allocation reduction. But there

th;., number and proportion of youth in Title I activities actually increased.

Most sponsors, however, have not experienced such cuts in Title I

funding and have maintained service to youth under other titles. In fact,

in some cases, the introduction of YEDPA has had an effect opposite to

that which the Department of Labor feared. Albuquerque, Coastal Bend

and El Paso are three sponsorships where planners felt youth were being

squeezed out of CETA. The interest there is on increasing youth enrollments

in other CETA titles. Albuquerque, with its Youth Incentive Entitlement

Pilot Project, its in-school Title I program, YCCIP and YETP, now is

serving more youth than non-youth. With the flow of vast resources, it

is turning the problems of youth into a new and significant priority on

its manpower agenda. Santa Clara is experiencing a similar effect. Since

YEDPA, the prime sponsor has established a Youth Division. In addition to

running the YETP and YCCIP programs for youth, the division may be able to

increase Title I programming for youth as well.

No matter what methodology may be adopted for gauging the extent

of substitution, important qualifications should be attached to the findings,

for two reasons. First, CETA enrollment data are set up in such a way as

to create considerable distortion in the picture of the actual number of

persons served. This question of data validity is important, but is not

taken up here. Another reason for proceeding very carefully in analyzing

substitution findings is that the regulations restricting prime sponsor

discretion in changing service levels and program mix for different client

40
-29-

groups, may not be appropriate. As the regulations stand now, "significant

change in local conditions" is the only criterion for change accepted by

the Department of Labor. The problem is that, frequently, there is no

data adequate for describing changes in local conditions.

First, accurate data for describing local conditions -- and the

changes that might justify program shifts -- are rarely available. As the

first interim report amply demonstrated, prime sponsors simply cannot get

urate estimates for the current universe of need, or for services already

jlable. For example, Chicago, while increasing the youth share of

title I services, was reducing the number of youths served because of too

little change in adult unemployment. Planners there were hinging Title I

services for adults on the adult unemployment rate, and the persistence of

the adult unemployment rate. Chicago's policy is clearly in accordance with

the letter of the substitution directives because it does not reduce the

youth share of Title I services. But, the reasoning used would not hold up

to DOL scrutiny if Chicago were "substituting" as DOL defines it.

Data on the prime sponsor universe of need and local conditions

is of questionable accuracy and validity. This alone undercuts the

appropriateness of the DOL policy to prevent substitution. But there are

other variables at work influencing the prime sponsor decision to change

program service and delivery patterns. Drop-out rates, wage rates for

youth, contractor performance, and simply increased prime sponsor understanding of local conditions can all dictate change. In Cobb County, a

Title I Nurses' Assistant Training class may be absorbed in the local

school system, leaving more than 200 Title I slots open. There is no

guarantee that CETA administrators will be able to contract for youth

services on such a large scale, with any other local organization. In

Northeast Georgia, the new, efficiently-run YETP program is making an

established Title I in-school program look so bad by comparison, that

there is a danger she Title I program may be eliminated. Again, it is not

clear that the CETA prime sponsor may not find itself in technical violation

of the substitution guidelines.

No one can argue with the Congress and Department of Labor's

goal to maximize the impact of YEDPA by reducing substituion. But what

is at question is the way in which DOL is enforcing the non-substitution

mandate. Unless the Department of Labor can devise an all encompassing

test capturing the effect of all the local variables that may be influential

in shaping client mix, perhaps there should be greater reliance on prime

sponsor discretion. This vote of confidence might be especially desirable

because it appears that there are other forms of substitution whose effects

may be swamping any YEDPA-for-Title I substitution, and which cannot be

controlled effectively from the national level. A vote of confidence in

prime sponsors may give them more of a vested interest in controlling these

other variations of substitution.

41
- 30 -

Other forms of Substitution

The Title I substitution that DOL is hoping to discourage is

negligible. It is not clear whether that is due to the efforts of DOL to

discourage substitution, or is more akin to the effect of the New Yorker

who snapped his fingers to keep wild elephants from attacking him -- which,

indeed, they did not do. Regardless of what is at work, there are some

other "substitution" effects which bear closer scrutiny, because they too

are diminishing the effects of YEDPA.

In Charlotte, an employment service recruiter noted that she was having greater difficulty developing slots for the summer program, because

potential employers had already developed slots for YEDPA youth. It

remains to be seen whether the employment service will be able to develop

enough jobs to take up all the slots available. There is also some concern

about woether in-school vocational education program slots will displace

cooperative education slots developed before, for which employers paid.

In Hartford, project areas that had been receiving community

development block grants are now receiving YCCIP money as well. There is

speculation now that the community development block grant money may be

shut off because of the influx of YCCIP funds. When community development

money ran down for another program sponsored by the Hartford Board of

Education, YETP was used to sustain services. There is good reason to

believe that the locally controlled block grant money was shut off in

anticipation of the YETP money. In both cases, if YEDPA money simply

replaces block grant money, there will be little net increase in resources for youth unless the suspended block grant funds go to support youth

activities sanewhere else.

There is also evidence that YEDPA funds that are going to schools

are sometimes being substituted for funds already available. But frequently

there are qualitative changes in the services provided. In Boston, a

previously existing school program for retarded youths is having its hour

extended and its supervisory staff augmented. Albuquerque schools are

extending their sumner-only internships for post-secondary students, to

year-round. Rut in some cases, minor changes may be just a cover for

substitution. A LEA in Cook County, for example, is shifting some students

currently enrolled in vocational education programs, into YETP. In other

areas, schools are extending counseling services to students who have not

traditionally benefited from them, but by right, have been entitled to them

all along. However, even in the cases where there may be YEDPA dollars

going to support school services already available, qualitative changes in

the services that schools provide, and the students to whom they provide

them, may have long-term effects that offset the substitution of federal

dollars for local dollars.

Behavior that diminishes the apparent impact of YEDPA is not

solely an institutional phenomenon. Youths themselves play a role. They

are able to influence client mix by their service seeking strategies.

Staffers at the Chicago Board of Education, for instance, are concerned

4A.
- 31 -

that youths may shun Title I for its shorter hours, and seek out Title III

jobs instead. The effect that YEDPA is having on labor force participation

may be much more significant, and could seriously mask the effects of YEDPA

on aggregate youth employment figures. The data available so far indicate

that YEDPA is having the effect of increasing labor force participation

among eligible youths. This is showing up when prime sponsors enroll

youth who are neither unemployed nor underemployed. This pattern is not

definite. Data from prime sponsors is not complete (See Table 4). The

variability in the data from prime sponsor to prime sponsor also suggests

that there might be different definitions being applied. But if the available

data are accurate enough for indicating rough orders of magnitude, it might

be inferred that an enormous proportion of YEDPA resources are going to

youths who would not otherwise be working or be looking for work. This, by

itself, is not necessarily an undesirable effect. Labor force participation

rates among many youth subgroups are disturbingly low and dropping among

economically disadvantaged minority youth especially. Any program that has

the effect of raising labor fcr,e participation among these groups is clearly

desirable. What is not clear yet, however, is whether the increase in

participation rates is greatest among those who have recently been

participating the least.

If, indeed, YEDPA is increasing labor force participation among

some segments of the target group, two implications are worth noting.

First, the effect of YCCIP and YETP on reducing youth unemployment rates

may be even less than the programs' scale originally suggested. This

would indicate that policymakers should be very circumspect in the way

that they look for the effect of YEDPA in reported unemployment. A

second implication is that Department of Labor youth policy can have a

quick and drastic effect on labor force behavior of youth. This would

imply that such questions as, for example, the effect of YCCIP jobs on

drop-out rates, are of much more than just academic interest. It would

also dictate a great deal of caution in balancing in-school and out-ofschool services so that students are not encouraged to quit school.

Coordinating Services for Youth

Substitution can be seen, in loose terms, as anything that

diminishes the potential impact of YEDPA by using YEDPA to provide something

that would have been provided otherwise. The other side of the coin is the

coordination of services for youth that stretches the impact of YEDPA by

taking advantage of resources already available. The coordination of

services for youth resolves around two areas of concern. The first is the

institutional linkages tying YEDPA activities to those of other agencies --

CETA and non-CETA alike. The second is the programmatic linkages between

YEDPA activities and the Summer Program for Economically Disadvantaged

Youth (SPEDY). Both topics are considered here, although the second will

be evaluated in more detail in the third interim report.

The Congress and the Department of Labor see YEDPA as marking

only a limited increase in resources, and as a provisional measure.
Table 4

Labor Force Status of

Participants at time

of Enrollment

California

Mari n

Oakland

Santa Clara/San Jose

San Francisco

Sonoma

Connecticut

BOS

Hartford Consortium

YETP YCCIP

Unemployed

Underemployed Other Unemployed

Underemployed

250

NA

24

NA

28

NA

83NA

1 NA

55LA Waterbury 88 0 45 15 0 5 Georgia

BOS 0 0 299 NA NA hk

Atlanta 786 0 0 108 0 0

Cobb County 49 0 21 37 0 4 DeKalb County NA NA NA NA NA hA

Illinois

Chicago 1532 27 1851 159 1 73 Cook County 206 2 0 51 0 0

Rockford 62 2 410 28 0 3 Massachusetts

Boston

Eastern Middlesex

Worcester

Michigan

Detroit

Grand Rapids 18 0 723 27 0 0

Kalamazoo County 99 2 0 6 0 0

Lansing Tri-Ccunty 70 6 569 28 10 9

Muskegon

New Mexico

Albuquerque 0 0 91 0 3 El North Carolina

BOS 3416 420 3165 222 0 0

Alamance County 167 2 0 18 0 0

Charlotte 250 0 0 18 0 0

Durham-Orange County 66 8 45 17 0 1 Ohio

Clark County 112 1 67 15 0 :4 Columbus-Franklin 440 1 0 99 0 0

Greene County 2 0 11 1 0 4 Oregon

BOS 215 9 41 20 1 0

Lane County 49 6 125 21 1 1 Portland 156 13 44 13 0 0

Texas

Coastal Bend 61 1 137 NA NA %A

El Paso 188 3 189 0 0 35 Washington

Kitsap County 50 6 1 11 0 2 44
- 33 -

Accordingly, they have intended for the new youth programs to build on other

services as much as possible. This was seen as a way to stretch YEDPA

dollars and also as a way to facilitate future adaptations as youth

strategies are modified. However, the coordination of CETA services with

non-CETA services is not a novel idea. It has been encouraged since the

advent of CETA and even before CETA. Unfortunately, it has previously met

with only limited success.

Youth Inventories

As one way to improve the chances of success for the YEDPA

coordination measures, the Department of Labor required prime sponsors to

develop an inventory of available youth services. The inventory was

intended to identify both local government agencies as well as organizations

outside the public sector. Regulations also required each prime sponsor

to specify the nature of its linkages with these other organizations in

its youth plan.

Most prime sponsors duly assembled their youth services inventories.

But in most cases, the exercise was a pro forma and perfunctory one. Time

did not permit careful research, and consequently many of them are only

listings of organizations with whom everyone was familiar. The formats of

many of the inventories are sufficient to satisfy the Department of Labor,

but are not suited as a tool for program planning, or as a reference

catalogue for referring youths to services.

Most prime sponsors considered compiling the inventories to be

a waste of time. But many felt that way because they had already developed

extensive listings of local service deliverers. A California youth

director found the existing listings far superior to anything that could

have been put together in the brief time beore the youth programs started.

In Rockford, the dearth of private agencies .ade the development of a

youth inventory a simple, but largely unnecessary, task. There were a

few cases, however, where persons found the inventories useful. One prime

sponsor in North Carolina claimed that the inventory provided information

that would not have otherwise been available. A program operator elsewhere

saw the inventory as being useful for identifying services that could be

tied to CETA. The latter case involved a person who was new to CETA

activities.

The inventories were prepared by most sponsors after the fiscal

1978 plans were prepared. Consequently, use of the inventories was limited.

If the present inventories have much use, it will be in connection with the

1979 programs. However, local experience suggests that most prime sponsors

have already established fairly extensive linkages with local organizations

capable of serving youth. Although organized listings may be lacking, the

players are aware of one another. Most of the prime 4onsors have a wealth

of local experience on which to draw. While the youth service inventories

may have been useful earlier in the course of prime sponsor development --

indeed, many developed just such a listing some time ago -- they are redundant

for most now.
-34-

Coordinating Services

One of the effects of YEDPA has been to prod some prime sponsors

into creating separate youth offices. Among other things, they seem to

promise more coordination with non-CETA deliverers, although it is not

always true that they encourage coordination within the CETA offices. The

Connecticut Balance of State prime sponsor created a new unit to handle

administrative affairs pertaining to YEDPA. However, youth program

operations continue to be run alongside other CETA operations. Other

prime sponsors opted for more change. San Francisco and Oakland both

established a centralized intake for youth enrolling in YETP. Three other

California sponsors -- Marin, Sonoma and Santa Clara -- went so far as to

establish separate youth divisions.

Albuquerque set up a novel one-stop office that assumes

responsibility for handling all youth services directly, making referrals

to other service deliverers. The youth office is attempting to streamline

delivery of services while humanizing the process by assigning a counselor

to handle all matters for each youth. Boston has plans for a similar

comprehensive service intake office. It probably will not be operational,

though, until next year. Atlanta established a youth intake and referral

office in addition to a Title III office that is coordinating and

administering YETP, YCCIP and SPEDY.

Other prime sponsors are choosing an incremental approach,

integrating the activities of YEDPA with their ongoing operations. In

Washington and Oregon, prime sponsors are modifying their organizations just

to meet new needs, such as linking up with local schools. The balance of

the services is provided within the framework of their existing structures.

Prime sponsors in Michigan are adopting a similar posture. There is an

"extended range of cooperation ... rather than the development of new

administrative and programmatic linkages, that typifies relations among ... prime sponsors and contractors." (Peter Kobrak, Page C-55).

Regardless of the administrative approach prime sponsors have

taken in response to YEDPA, fairly extensive coordination with outside

agencies seems to be the rule. Both the Connecticut Balance of State and

the Waterbury prime sponsors rely fully on the Employment Service to

handle all their certification duties. Some of the CBOs under contract

with those sponsors have worked out informal service arrangements with a

number of state agencies, for such services as vocational rehabilitation.

Sponsors in Washington and Oregon arrnage services on the basis of informal

agreements and ongoing working relationships, with a myriad of organizations.

They include community colleges, residential facilities for youth, alcohol

and drug rehabilitation programs, welfare and children's service agencies,

vocational rehabilitation divisions, public health agencies, V.D. and

family planning clinics, food stamp offices, legal service agencies, and

the employment service. In Rockford, the Employment Service handles some

of the intake paperwork in exchange for CETA employees. Chicago receives

Employment Service assistance for eligibility verification. In Cook County,

the Employment Service helps absorb the overflow for contractors unable to

4G
- 35 -

generate sufficient placement slots. The Greene County prime sponsor has

arranged non-financial agreements with the Employment Service, the joint

vocational school, the community action agency, a local college and other

organizations. Muskegon gets assistance from the local Urban League in

writing OJT contracts for one of the major YEDPA contractors. Muskegon

also received assistance from the local Hartman Institute in developing

and administering tests as part of the intake process. Kalamazoo succeeded

in establishing linkages between the state social service agency and school

counselors.

There are "compromise" approaches to coordination that prime

sponsors have adopted. In Cobb County and Northeast Georgia, sponsors have

favored a single agent for handling YETP, in the interest of preventing

fragmentation of services. This was done because the lack of time worked

against prime sponsors doing much coordination and because relatively

small numbers of youth were involved.

Tying SPEDY in with YCCIP and YETP

Generally prime sponsors are trying to connect SPEDY to their

Title I youth activities, YETP, and to a limited extent, YCCIP. Linkages

will be marked more by administrative shifts in funding sources for jobs,

than by changes in program components. But one change noticeable to

youths in SPEDY will be an increase in supportive services over those

provided in previous SPEDY programs. In Lansing, the emphasis will be on

keeping Title I, YCCIP and YETP youths in the same jobs and supportive

activities. Clark County is taking a similar approach. It is trying to

mesh year-round activities with SPEDY, providing summer youth with YETP

services. In Cook County, YETP and YCCIP enrollees will have their work

week extended and be given opportunities for vocational exploration.

Atlanta will be bringing in some of its new YET:, contractors to run their

summer programs. In-school youth on YETP and YCCIP will have their hours

extended. All SPEDY enrollees will benefit from a greater emphasis on

career exploration.

One of the most ambitious plans for linking SPEDY with yearround activities, can be found in Grand Rapids. There, planners are hard

at work on next year's SPEDY vogram, because they are trying to consolidate

YETP and YCCIP into a coordinated, twelve-month program. Already they are

preparing a consolidated Request for Proposals that covers the three

programs.

One exaevtion to ' e way prime sponsors are trying to unify

YEDPA and SPEDY, is fo, .1 i Greene County, Ohio. There, planners are trying

to use SPEDY as a complement to the year-round programs. Since YCCIP and

YETP serve only youths 16 and over, SPEDY will concentrate on enrolling

14 and 15 year olds. Since YCCIP and YETP in Greene County emphasize

service to school-leavers, SPEDY is being aimed at in-schoolers, who plan

to return to school in the fall. The Greene County pattern is probably

not seen elsewhere for two reasons, First, other sponsors are placing less
- 36 -

emphasis on serving 14-15 year olds. Second, other sponsors have more of a

balance between those in school and those out-of-school, in their year-round.

programs.

The general interest among prime sponsors is to run YETP (and

sometimes YCCIP) into SPEDY, possibly increasing hours, but hopefully

maintaining the same job sites. There are some obstacles, however. One

is the differing eligibility criteria. YCCIP and YETP enrollees who are

above the income cut-off for SPEDY eligibility, will not be able to move

into SPEDY funded jobs (or have their job extended with SPEDY money).

However, this is not expected to present serious difficulties since prime

sponsors have been concentrating on enrolling economically disadvantaged,

and since delays in implementation of YEDPA are leaving prime sponsors with

some lag funds.

A more serious obstacle to merging YEDPA and SPEDY jobs is the

differences in wages under the different programs. SPEDY jobs are

occasionally paying more. Where they do, prime sponsors expect to be

facing situations where YCCIP and YETP youth will be trying to quit their

jobs to get more money with SPEDY. Whether sponsors can adjust wages

adequately or devise administrative mechanisms to prevent participant

program-hopping, remains to be seen.

Prime sponsors are making an effort to make connections between

SPEDY and YEDPA. In the cases where the connection is not being made, the

failure seems to be a function of pressing circumstances. Columbus, for

example, has barely moved in its implementation of YEDPA, so coordination

with SPEDY is a moot point. Detroit, still struggling with its massive

entitlement project, has had no time to think about linking SPEDY with

YEDPA. For the moment, it is concentrating simply on implementing SPEDY

as a separate program and the entitlement project. But even in these cases,

it does not appear as though the lack of linkages is going to leave any

YEDPA youth jobless during the summer.

Holding Down Overhead on the Youth Programs

The tight limits on administrative costs make it all the more

necessary for prime sponsors to coordinate services and try other mechanisms

for cutting overhead. If YCCIP and YETP were established independent of

other CETA operations, they would attract few takers. YETP activities have

a fairly tight 20 percent limit on administrative costs. YCCIP activities

have a stingy 5 percent lid on administrative costs. In fact, many prime

sponsors had a great deal of difficulty contracting for YCCIP projects in

the fall and winter.

Prime sponsors were encouraged to reduce overhead costs by

begging, borrowing, or stealing whatever facilities, services, money or

supplies they could. Virtually all of them have succeeded to some extent.

Some,have had extraordinary success.
- 3/ -

YETP programs almost everywhere are enjoying the benefits of at

least some free space, telephone service, and administrative support from

schools, and CBOs, as well as other CETA programs. Public service employees

are frequently used as supervisors. The employment service offices have

been especially cooperative in providing outreach, screening, and eligibility

determination services. They have provided free testing, and in some cases

are conducting job development and placement programs. Much of the outside

support has been absolutely essential. It is hard to imagine many of the

YETP programs functioning at any level of effectiveness without that support.

This level of cooperation is noteworthy.

The extent of cooperation for YCCIP projects has been especially

impressive in a few cases. It reflects a great deal of ground work by prime

sponsors and delivery agents.

A YCCIP building renovation project in Hartford joined an ongoing

community effort. It is working on one building that had been scheduled for

demolition, but was sold, instead, to a league of community organizations.

With the help of local banks, the Public Housing Corporation in Hartford

mortgaged the building -- at below market interest rates -- to help pay for

renovation supplies. The YCCIP project is working on another building that

is being leased for below market rates.

In Rockford, the prime sponsor and the CBO in charge of a stadium

renovation project, have succeeded in amassing an estimated $100,000 worth

of cash contributions, donated services, and donated supplies. That does

not include the stadium and property. In another exemplary joint effort,

the Greene County (Ohio) prime sponsor is sponsoring an $18,000 YCCIP

winterization project. A county high school and the local village are

matching that $18,000 with $36,000 in supervisory costs and materials.

Prime sponsors are also tapping federal resources available through

other programs. In the Connecticut Balance of State, CBOs are purchasing

supplies with cash contributions. Transportation services are provided at

no cost through a regional minibus demonstration project funded by the

U.S. Department of Transportation. In several areas where YCCIP weatherproofing projects are underway, the Community Services Administration is

extensively involved, supplying technical assistance and supplies.

Attempts to reduce overhead and stretch YEDPA resources are paying

off -- handsomely in some cases. Aside from leveraging the YEDPA resources

into some well-supported activities, the efforts are also succeeding in

broadening the base of community support of the projects. In Rockford and

Greene County, for example, much more is at stake than some federal dollars.

Local, non-CETA actors have a stake in the action. It is onl.1, a short step

from there to the understanding that they have a stake in the '"cure of

the youth from their communities.
- 38 -

Involvement of Community Based Organizations

Under CETA, the selection of program agents can assume an importance

rivaling the selection of target groups. CETA funds, of course, represent

valuable dollar resources. The choice of who gets those dollar resources to

run programs is an important matter of economic efficiency. But CETA dollars

also stand for political resources. The shift from categorical programs of

the 1960s to CETA, shifted resources and power towards state and local

governments, away from many community based groups representing minority

groups, impoverished, and disenfranchised persons who had little effective

access to traditional political power structures. Hence, the advent of CETA

marked, in many minds, the potential for a significant shift in the balance

of power -- economic as well as political power -- away from the disenfranchised.

To keep this from happening, CETA legislation included provisions requiring

prime sponsors to give CBOs "due consideration," when selecting service

delivery agents. YEDPA has strengthened the language, requiring prime

sponsors to give CBOs "special consideration" in involving them in program

planning and service delivery.

The first report of local YEDPA experience documents the nature of

the "special consideration" prime sponsors gave CBOs, and the effect it has

had on involving them in delivering youth services. This report begins the

process of assessing the differential impact CBOs can have as service

deliverers.

Do CBOs Have an Edge?

Given the attention focused on CBOs and what appears to be a

noticeable increase in their participation, an inevitable question is:

What difference does their participation make? Do they, in fact, represent

a different point of view? Do they, in fact, reach persons who would not

otherwise be served? Do they provide different services, or can they provide

better services?

The evidence collected in the course of observations made during

the spring is certainly not definitive. However, it seems to support the

conclusion that there is very little to distinguish CBOs from other service

deliverers with respect to cost, target group penetration, or effectiveness

as program deliverers. There appears to be a full range of variations

between CBOs, and hardly any systematic variations between CBOs as a group

and other service deliverers.

Cost comparisons between CBOs and non-CBOs are inconclusive. The

"special consideration" provision in YEDPA raised the ire of some prime

sponsor officials who claimed the clause would raise their costs. But when

prime sponsors were pressed for hard evidence, none was forthcoming. The

only valid observation is that, to the extent CBOs are frequently small

organizations unable to achieve economies of scale, program costs are

higher. But, since CBOs vary in size and include some of the largest progre

50
- 39 -

delivery agents under YEDPA, that criticism does not hold across the board.

One presumed advantage of governmental service deliverers is the opportunity

they present for piggybacking CETA activity on other agency work, at little

cost to CETA. Yet many CBOs, enjoying a broad base of financial support

for delivering a range of services, can frequently achieve the same

economies.

Under YEDPA there is a mixed verdict on the differential

effectiveness of CBOs in penetrating particular target groups and serving

them. Where CBOs do their own outreach and intake, they do not appear

necessarily to have an edge over other outreach/intake arrangements. In

some cases this might be attributable to them having become as much a part

of the local establishment as any government agency. But it usually appears

to be because youth learn quickly about program opportunity, and the outreach/

intake function does not prove to be a critical component. There is some

speculation that schools, because of their proximity to the in-school youth

population, are relatively better adapted to performing outreach/intake

for in-school programs. But that advantage, if it exists, is offset by

the success that CBOs have in identifying and enrolling out-of-school

youth.

The question of whether CBOs are more effective or less effective

than others in reaching youth in need is proving to be a moot point in many

prime sponsorships under YEDPA. Sponsors are shifting to centralized intake

and assessment centers, and CBOs and other program agents do not pick up

the action until youths are referred to them.

With regards to their effectiveness as program operators, it is

again impractical to attempt to classify CBOs as a group. There are too

many variations among them. One serious charge made against them is that

their work experience and too much of their training capacity is geared

to public sector work. But the same holds for the governmental deliverers.

One sign of enhanced CB0 effectiveness is their progressive

integration with the local service network. There appears to be a greater

willingness to refer CB0 enrollees to other institutions, most notably,

local schools. The major LEA role under YEDPA has contributed to this.

But, it appears that there has also been some lessening of tension that

arose from past criticism of the job schools were doing in serving disadvantaged

youth.

In short, under YEDPA, the CB0 role is hardly distinguishable as

such. CBOs appear to be very much a part of the local service delivery

mainstream. But this argues in favor of continued preferential treatment.

Indeed, past preferential treatment seems to have been instrumental in

moving CBOs to the position they are in now. The lack of distinguishing

CB0 traits might be seen as indicating some sort of equilibrium.

Changes in Institutional Relationships

The isolation theme is persistent in elements of youth employment

problems: isolation of schools from employers, isolation of youths from

51.
- 40 -

school, isolation of the CETA system from schools, and isolation of youths

from work. The toll of this isolation is high. Schools and employers have

faulty perceptions about what each other does, and have unrealistic

expectations about what each other might do for students. Youths too

frequently have unrealistic career goals, have few ideas about how to fulfill

the realistic ones, and have distorted views of employment and the world

of work. Economically disadvantaged youth suffer the effects of isolation

even more. Frequently concentrated in substandard schools and in labor

surplus areas, an education leaves them with nothing more than a diploma,

and little prospects for decent employment.

The isolation theme is significant for what it implies about the

real impact that schools, employers, and youth themselves can have on the

problems of youth employment, when they act alone. Singly, they can do

very little. CETA can have little luck with job development and placement

programs for persons who cannot read. The most civic minded employer

will go bankrupt hiring unskilled and uneducated workers for jobs demanding

persons skilled in crafts. The most advanced high school is bound to

perform poorly in placing youths in jobs if it does not heed the needs of

einpl oyers.

Recognizing the gulf separating important players with a role in

solving youth employment problems, the Congress and the Department of Labor

have fashioned YEDPA as a tool for institutional change. Provisions in

YETP and YCCIP were designed, not just to improve the capabilities of schools

and the CETA establishment to provide more support within their systems,

but to encourage the kinds of institutional interaction necessary to

facilitate the transition for youth between educational institutions and

employment and training establishments, and employers and the world of

work. Furthermore, prime sponsors are encouraged to establish linkages

with unions and private' usinesses for providing services and for providing

jobs. Plans for these linkages are supposed to be included in prime sponsor

youth plans.

The biggest emphasis on institutional linkages, though, is between

local education agencies (LEAs) and CETA prime sponsors. Although YEDPA

sponsors did not presume a total absence of CETA-LEA cooperation, they did

presume that in most areas, linkages were incomplete. To foster

institutional ties, a minimum of 22 percent of each sponsor's YETP

allocation is reserved for programs operated under the authority of

agreements between prime sponsors and LEAs. Sponsors are additionally

encouraged to gain cooperation of LEAs in arranging for academic credit

for YETP and YCCIP work experience.

In the first report on YEDPA experience at the local level, prime

sponsors, almost universally, were found to be interested in, and in the

process of arranging CETA-LEA agreements. By mid-spring, details of most

of the agreements had been resolved, programs were in place and they were

operating. However, all has not been smooth sailing from there. Developing

and implementing the LEA agreements has raised many problems. There are

question marks about next year. Much stands in the way of a fully productive

relationship between local CETA agents and the LEAs, although some significant

first steps have been made.
- 41 -

Making the Connection Betweel CETA and Local Schools

Cooperation between prime sponsors and local schools is not an untried concept. In many areas, there is a history of joint efforts that

pre-dates CETA. CETA sponsors in Chicago and Cook County have been talking

and working with educators there for years. The school system in both areas

has acted as program agent many times. The same is true in Atlanta,

Marin County, San Francisco and Oakland to name a few. Some schools are as

tuned into CETA as the prime sponsors.. In Detroit, one CETA official noted

"Lt /he Board of Education knew how much YEDPA money we were getting before

we did." (Peter Kobrak, Page C-40).

Most prime sponsors, however, started with no established links.

They and their respective local schools had operated in relative isolation,

in spite of their supposed common interest: preparing youths for adulthood.

A few primes started with strikes against them: a history of bad feelings

between prime sponsors and LEAs. School districts in Sonoma have been

hostile towards CETA for years and have shown little inclination to serve some of the prime YEDPA targets: dropouts, potential dropouts, and other

problem youths. There were bad feelings between LEAs and the CETA office

in Charlotte arising from a scandal over the misuse by a few individuals

of CETA summer funds.

In cases where there have been few precedents for CETA-LEA

cooperation, the substance of the agreements is still at a very tentative

stage. Policy seems to have taken a backseat for the moment, to more

pressing operational matters of hammering out the framework for LEA

agreements, appointing persons to administer programs and identifying

and enrolling program participants. As the programs encompassed by the

agreements are established, there is certain to be more attention to the

large policy issues. Then changes may be made. This is not to say that

joint CETA-LEA activities are devoid of substance. Some have been

carefully considered. But some of the policy issues behind the interest

in institutional change have not been very well articulated by local

planners, and change appears to be, to some extent, the product of chance.

In a few areas, officials seem to have a grasp for the significance

of strong links between the manpower establishment and the education

establishment. In North Carolina, the full State Board of Education and

the North Carolina Employment and Training Council sat down together for

the first time ever. Governor James Hunt took part in the meeting, urging

cooperation "to help coordinate a state-wide effort to forge an unbroken

link for youths between school and work." (R. C. Smith, Page H-19).

Schools in North Carolina Balance of State are receiving approximately

60 percent of the sponsorship's YETP allocation. The Balance of State

prime sponsor is also closely monitoring LEA activities and is pushing

joint program activities and services tied to other CETA programs. The

state has also gone so far as to include a provision explicitly prohibiting

LEAs from supplanting YEDPA funds for state or local funds.
-42-

Sensitivity to the need or to the potential for closer CETA-LEA

ties is not universal, however. The first reaction of the Oregon State

Department of Education to one county's proposal for augmenting its CETALEA project was discouraging. The State Department of Education objected

to a proposal for a career exploration and experience component. As a

departmental committee put it, the objection was based "... not so much

on the proposal itself as on the involvement of CETA in the project."

The feeling was that such a connection "endangered the possibility of

program success, and greatly limited its tranportability." (Bonnie Snedeker,

Page 1-18). After some strong reaction to the committee report, a new

letter was issued, retracting the earlier statement and affirming the

belief of the department and the committee that "such linkages to various

segments of the community are vital to vocational education in the state."

(Bonnie Snedeker, Page 1-18).

For the most part, there was an absence of a pLrivasive state role

either encouraging or hindering LEA connections with CETA. The forum for

establishing the CETA-LEA contact was usually at the local level, ot. between

local (or county schools) and balance of state CETA offices.

Keeping in mind the usual cautions against generalizing about

anything as decentralized and decategorized as CETA and the educatiorY,

system, some patterns do emerge from the CETA-LEA experience so far.

CETA-LEA agreements fall into two general groups. Those that set up

LEAs as relatively autonomous program agents, and those that set up the

LEAs as integral cogs in a coordinated system attempting to ease the

transition of youths from school to work. The implications for institutional

change vary between the two groups.

One characteristic of the autonomous LEA program agents, is the

lack of concern for dropouts or graduates who lack even basic reading and

math skills. Many of these persons find themselves getting little out of

CETA job training, because of their poor education history. A hope of

YEDPA sponsors was that CETA-LEA agreements would be instrumental in

providing this population with a second shot at basic education opportunities.

Frequently, this is not happening within the independent LEA programs.

They are limited to expanding services or providing new services to students

already within the school system. Marin County schools, receiving 40 percent

of the county's YEDPA allocation, is focusing entirely on students, because

both the LEA and CETA officials feel in-school youth have been shortchanged.

Part of the rationale, however, in concentrating on in-schoolers is to

prevent dropouts. Schools in the Grand Rapids consortium, receiving nearly

half of the YETP allocation, are serving only current students. Dropouts

go through a different channel and are served by community based organizations.

A similar approach is followed in Kalamazoo. The comments of one Kalamazoo

CBO staffer imply that the schools will continue the pattern: "Once he's

out of the system, the schools feel that he's not their problem anymore."

(Peter Kobrak, Page C-46).

By concentrating on students still in the system, it is not clear

that the LEAs running autonomous programs are contributing in any substantial

L- J 4
- 43 -

way to achieving the broad goal of encouraging change in institutional

relationships, or the more specific objective of bringing youth back to

school. They do not appear to be doing much to change the nature of the

institutional linkage between schools and employers, nor are they systematically

complementing the service capability of prime sponsors.

However, even where schools are running relatively autonomous and

isolated programs, there is solid evidence that there is at least one internal institutional change: the emphasis on bringing economically

disadvantaged students into the mainstream of ongoing programs. The YETPtargeted youths are being included in career exploration, vocational

training, and cooperative/distributive education programs in which they

had not been participating before. The danger -- and this will bear

watching -- is that schools will just go through the motions of enrolling

then w' out taking the effort to provide the extra services these youths

may If the schools have the capability and the interest in providing

extra support, the newly enrolled youths may succeed. Some schools do

show signs of taking this commitment seriously. Many schools are first

providing youths with counseling and guidance services, and some work

experience before they place them in more demanding cooperative education

programs. But for the schools lacking the capacity to handle the special

needs of some underachievers, the isolation from the extensive CETA

support services :lay prove fatal to the effort.

In some areas, prime sponsors and schools are working out agreements

that reflect a team approach. The implications for institutional change

in those cases seem much more promising. Sometimes this strategy is

deliberate. The Muskegon consortium requires all its contractors to

enroll a proportion of dropouts, with the idea that they can be brought

back into the educational system. The larger CBO contractor there is

placing enrollees in a summer school program. One of the schools is

enrolling dropouts in its Adult Education program. One of the consortium

goals is to start dropouts in high school completion programs in September.

The careful attention of the consortium's administrators to the role of

LEAs as more than autonomous contractors provides promise for a comprehensive

education-employment-training network for youth.

In other areas, that kind of network appears to be developing, but

it appears to be more as a function of chance. In Sonoma County, there is

a history of hostility between the school districts and CETA. Furthermore,

the schools have not served potential dropouts well, and have ignored the

plight of dropouts and problem students. This is showing signs of changing.

Sonoma has a new CETA administrator, and the LEA agreement appears to be

bringing schools and the CETA establishment together. The Coos County

Intermediate Education District in the Oregon Balance of State prime

sponsorship is developing a new program model linking high school

occupational curricula to a program of career employment opportunities.

The program, designed for high school dropouts and other non-students,

consists of two components: enrolling youths in high school, GED programs,

or community colleges, and placing them in individualized work experience

slots. Portland school districts are running a work experience program

for in-schoolers and out-of-schoolers, that steers dropouts towards
-44-

reenrolling. Drawing on a history of earlier cooperation with the prime

sponsor, the schools are also offering extensive career development

assistance services.

In areas like Portland, it appears that the kind of CETA-LEA

linkages that national policymakers are hoping for, are already well on the

way to being forged. In other areas, prime sponsors and LEAs seem a little

further back in a process that could lead to substantially new relationships

between the two. But a blueprint for change is lacking. In Cook County,

for example, it appears that the prime sponsor is not succeeding in developing

a jointly sponsored comprehensive system of service delivery. Despite prime

sponsor encouragement to have the schools serve dropouts, only 1 out of the

5 agreements available for study provided for any services to dropouts.

Only 1 the other 4 was geared to provide remedial education. Neither

prime sponsors nor LEAs are providing much leadership for strategic planning.

Where leadership is present, the LEAs and/or prime sponsors are experiencing

little success in steering other players towards building a system of

complementary services. This syndrome -- so prevalent among the prime

sponsors included in this study -- appears to be characteristic of first

year operations. The notion of a blueprint for overall strategy may be

premature. In the press to implement a large and complex program, prime

sponsors and LEAs alike were swamped with a host of administrative dulands.

The development of LEA agreements consumed a great deal of time, and some

prime sponsors used up the reservoir of good wil' just getting their feet

in the door. They were not in the position to pursue some of the larger

policy objectives that entailed complicating thf' already confusing administrative

maze. In short, some of the goals national policymakers have attached to

CETA-LEA agreements will have to wait. But with schools and CETA officials at

least on talking terms, further refinements in the specific provisions of

CETA-LEA agreement seem much more feasible now then they did a year ago.

Although progress to date, and the potential for further progress,

is encouraging, prime sponsors and LEAs have encountered some common problems

in negotiating CETA-LEA agreements: distrust, differences in standards,

differences in perspective, and differences in organizational objectives.

They are the kinds of differences inherent in the nature of changing

institutional relationships. Short of changing human nature, there is

little that can be done about many of these difficulties. They are part

of the "ordeal of change."

Therc were also the inevitable time pressures that prime sponsors

find themselves working with whenever a new CETA program is established.

The planning process was telescoped into a few weeks and prime sponsors

had to advertise for program contracts, review bids, and select performers,

in a short period of time. Adding to the misery of prime sponsors were

other CETA mandates, such as expanding public service employment quickly.

Many also found it politically dangerous to ignore opportunities to apply

for YEDPA discretionary money and YIEPP grants. Nearly all prime sponsors

passed their deadlines for negotiating LEA agreements, with nothing on

paper. The sponsors themselves were too busy, and the LEAs were not

accustomed to moving quickly. Yet in spite of the difficulties and delays,

the agreements have been completed for the programs ending September 30, 1978:

56
- 45

Negotiating details for the following year should prove easier in

many respects. Prime sponsors will be contending with ongoing programs,

and some basic formats for LEA-CETA cooperation have been established. The

first year's experience, however, has highlighted some basic problems. They

all trace back to the incompatibility between the prime sponsors' federallylinked program year and the LEAs' school year.

CETA runs on a fiscal year beginning October 1st. Schools usually

operate on a fiscal year starting January 1st or July 1st. They also have

an academic year that runs from September to June. The differences in the

calendar have led to a number of problems. First, schools have difficulty

hiring qualified persons they would otherwise be able to pick if the planning

years were compatible. As it stands now, a school employee working in a YEDPA job must risk being out of work from October through December (or

June, depending on the school's fiscal year) if YEDPA funding does not come through in October. Some schools are gambling, hiring persons, with

commitments to km) them at least into January. This approach gives them

more programming flexibility and permits greater program expansion. But

any interruption in funding would be very disruptive, forcing layoffs and

effectively isolating the new programs.

Other schools are rat risking those hazards, and are instead,

simply adding the YEDPA load to current teaching, counseling, and administrative

loads. By using the same persons in the YEDPA activities as are in regular

school programs, the latter strategy sometimes assures better integration

of employment and education programs. But in the schools where employees

already have heavy workloads, the extra burdens represent a hardship for

teachers, counselors and administrators, and force them to give too little

attention to YEDPA enrollees. Local decisionmakers have to balance the

strengths and weaknesses of the minimal change approach, with the high

costs of errors that are inherent in the former strategy.

Another problem arises from the lengthy lead-time that schools

take for programming and budgeting. For example, schools in Muskegon and

Kalamazoo traditionally complete planning in early spring -- just as YEDPA

planning for fiscal year 1979 was starting. This is leaving little time for

careful program development.

Schools are also encountering difficulty in coordinating class

schedules for in-schoolers participating in YEDPA. Schedules for the fall

semester are made up in the summer or spring, before YEDPA work and service

schedules can be established. The summer vacation schedules for school

personnel complicate the problem. This means that schedules must be

juggled after the semester starts, a difficult and time consuming task.

In many areas the difficulty of synchronizing YEDPA activities to

the school year is not expected to be a serious problem. In some areas,

though, it is dimming the prospects of any joint efforts by prime sponsors

and the schools. One CETA official noted emphatically: "It could be the

difference in the long run between YEDPA's success and failure."

(R. C. Smith, Page N-20).
-46-

CETA and the Private Sector

CETA has been criticized frequently for its emphasis on the public

sector: training enrollees for public sector jobs and placing jobless

persons in public service employment. With five of every six jobs being

in the private sector, there is merit to the criticism. In fact, no one

has deliberately stood in the way of CETA-private sector cooperation.

There is great sentiment among CETA supporters at the national and local

levels, favoring a closer prime sponsor tie to the private sector -- businesses and unions. But neither labor market conditions nor the

institutional orientation of CETA, on one hand, or private employers, on

the other hand, have fostered much cooperation.

YEDPA was written to encourage prime sponsors to change their

orientation, making them more attractive, and receptive, to private sector

interests. The first interim report of YEDPA at the local level demonstrated

that prime sponsors are taking the initiative; but that private sector interests,

for the most part, are not responding. There has been no dramatic change

since that time. Neither does there seem to be much promise for any

breakthrough, similar to the breakthrough with LEAs that now seems possible.

However, there is scattered evidence of some genuine contact,

dialogue, and action. The progress is hardly a quantum leap, but it could

presage the kind of modest, undramatic breakthrough that will mark change

on this front. In Durham-Orange, local employers and other private sector

representatives are cooperating with the prime sponsor and the local

schools, in putting together a resource directory of experts to be used for

career planning. In Cobb County, the training contractor, Industrial

Technology Career Center, is associated with Lockheed. It is hoped that

the connection may improve private sector placements in general. The

City of Portland is contemplating buying training for CETA participants

from major firms in the area. The Mayor of Portland is actively involved,

trying to persuade corporate executives to back the youth programs. Two

projects in Oregon have had substantial success with private businesses.

In one project, half the YETP enrollees are in private sector OJT slots,

thanks to an ambitious selling job by the project counselor. A YCCIP solar

heating project has had the effect of stimulating private investment in the

solar heating business. The new commercial activity should be able to

absorb the YCCIP enrollees ready for placement in unsubsidized employment.

In Lane County, LEA staff are expecting to be able to develop OJT contracts

and to place YETP enrollees in private sector jobs. The feeling among

LEA staffers is that they will have more success than the CETA system

alone, "... because they represent a stable mainstream institution."

(Bonnie Snedeker, Page 1-19).

There may be a degree of bias in the judgment of the Lane County

educators. But, it seems significant that so many of the cases of private

sector links involve schools. This may be one more spillover from

progress on the CETA-LEA front.
-47-

With a few notable exceptions, unions remain only peripherally

involved with YEDPA. San Francisco's largest YCCIP project was union

initiated and is union supported. It is a Painters' Apprenticeship program

which would appear to have potential as a model, were it not for the fact

that the conditions there, especially the union interest, seem to be more

the ideal than the norm. In Oakland, after some initial union resistance,

there is union support for its YCCIP programs. The unions plan to submit

proposals for their own YCCIP project in FY 1979. However, unions, for

the most part, continue to provide little affirmative support for YEDPA

at the local level. More often than not, they make themselves heard only

when their interests seem to be threatened.

The connections of YEDPA-related programs to private sector

interests still have a long way to go. Private employers are frequently

suspicious of CETA red tape. Child labor laws and insurance regulEtions

frequently make it more difficult to hire youths, and put a damper on the

willingness of private employers to get involved. Of course, the effects

of a sluggish economy are critical. One attempt in Clark County to develop

ten on-the-job training positions failed because no commitments could be

made. But some basic institutional prejudices persist and also stand in

the way of progress. An LEA project in Cook County that was going to rotate

youths through private sector jobs was rejected by the DOL regional office.

An industrial representative who was chairman of one youth planning council,

resigned when state and federal officials told him that the youth programs

were intended only to provide economic relief and assure constructive use

of enrollees' time. The officials were not interested in his thoughts,

as a representative of that area's largest employer, about what youths need

to prepare themselves for employment.

Where biases like these persist in the CETA establishment, the

youth initiatives can have only limited impact as tools for forging closer

private sector links.
- 48 -

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The experience of prime sponsors so far suggests, on balance a

significant record of success in implementing YEDPA and achieving its

goals. Local experiences also suggest some measures that might be pursued

at the federal and local levels in order to improve performance even more.

(1) Knowledge Development. YEDPA marked a new emphasis on prime

sponsor involvement in evaluation, research, and demonstration activities.

The stress on creating a new prime sponsor role in these areas naturally

brought with it a need for a great deal of guidance. It also brought with

it the realization that in the first year accomplishments would be limited.

On the positive side, it appears that many prime sponsors did increase

evaluation activities. A minority tried out new approaches, directly in

response to the call for knowledge development. A handful attempted

structured local experiments. It is almost certain that these types of

activities were far more prevalent than they would have been in the absence

of the emphasis on local knowledge development. These developments may

help prepare a base for absorbing the lessons of nationally directed

discretionary knowledge development activities. They may also lead to

improvements locally.

It is doubtful, however, that local knowledge development

activities will substantially improve overall understanding of youth

problems and programs. There is uneven capacity among prime sponsors to

undertake this function. There continues to be a good deal of confusion

about the substance and form that knowledge development should take.

The Department of Labor provided too little guidance about how prime

sponsors might approach knowledge development. In the face of the

ambiguous, open-ended knowledge development requirements, many prime

sponsors did very little, or tried only to respond to what local officials

thought that DOL officials wanted. Others attempted to set up excessively

sophisticated research projects that, by attempting to do too much,

probably will accomplish very little.

The Departmentcouldremedy this_ situation by providing more

technical assistance, directly to Trime_sponsors, or indirectly, by.

facilitating communication among prime sponsors. The Department should

also assure that there is some minimum decree of agreement among the

relional offices, with respect to what knoWIedge development is, and what

is alTOWable in the name of knowledge development. Further guidance on

knowledge development should encourage a link between what is being

labeled asIrknowledge development:" and other evaluation/monitoring

activities.

(2) The site reports suggest that supervision and job enrichment

have been given heavy emphasis by CETA prime sponsors; to the extent that

these factors affect the impact of work experience, the new youth programs

have produced major improvements. YCCIP, which was designed as a wellsupervised work experience with limited enrichment, has been linked with

other programs to provide more than work experience alone.

6o
-49-

Under YCCIP and YETP, prime sponsors are giving much attention to

career exploration for youth through actual work experience and through more

structured occupational information channels. The accent on placing youth

in career-related jobs is proving to be impractical. Some youths have not

thought about career plans. Others have either, what might be considered

unrealistic plans, or plans for jobs that do not fit in with the youth

jobs that are available. The emphasis on career-related jobs is also

premature for many youths, in the sense that they have only the vaguest

notions about the world of work. Before they can appreciate the

differentiating details of different kinds of jobs, they need to understand

the common requirements of all jobs.

On the other hand, vocational exploration classes and counseling

seem to be more effective mechanisms for providing exposure to different

career options. Tpthe_extentthat_career_exploration is emphasized, prime

sponsors_ should be encouraged_ toilnyide it through counseling and classroom

experience_._The highest priority in any job_deyelopment campaign should be

on work experience that teaches, at a minimum, basic work habits, and the

importance of those habits_.

While prime sponsors have increased emphasis on private sector

linkages, and while their efforts have had positive effects in 'few cases,

continued emphasis is needed. Prime sponsors should be encouraged, more

than they are already, to attempt to establish a strong bond with private

sector interests. More practically, they should be encouraged to evaluate

Sob slot fdevelOpm-erfplans with reference to how much of what is learned

in a certain job is transferrable to private sector employment.

(3) Prime sponsors have followed the regulations requiring youth

membership on youth advisory councils. However, the advisory council

appears to be a poor vehicle for increasing youth participation in prime

sponsor affairs. The councils themselves are often mere tigureheads, and

youths on the councils are not participating very much. Some sponsors are

experimenting with alternative modes of participation, and are enjoying

some degree of success.

Although Departmental guidance on increasing youth participation

is not limited to youth advisory councils, there should be more emphasis on piiiiCs.-piinsors--expeilmentiqit:afFOtherforms of participation.

(4) The YEDPA legislation provides prime sponsors with a degree

of latitude in choosing who to enroll in youth programs. However, the

Employment and Training Administration has gone beyond the legislation in

emphasizing targeting on youth most in need. Prime sponsors have responded

positively, by consistently aiming services for economically disadvantaged

youths. There may be some force of habit in effect, but local pressures

for serving those most in need are also persuasive. Enrollments should be

monitored to see whether.prime sponsors continue to concentrate on

serving economically disadvanta_g_ed_youth.____Tf/when -There is a shift in

targeting, further monitoring should be undertaken to determine whether

there is a reasonable basis for such shifts.

6
- 50 -

Prime sponsors are seriously underenrolling females in YCCIP

projects. It is not clear whether this is due to relatively few females in

the YCCIP applicant pool or to discrimination in job placements. In either

case, prime sponsors should be encouraged to undertake more outreach

activity, so that female enrollments in YCCIP can be raised.

(5) Substitution of YEDPA resources for Title I resources is not

proving to be a serious problem. In fact, there tias been a remarkable degree

of utilization of other services and programs to enrich the youth initiatives.

However, substitution of YEDPA resources for non-CETA resources could prove

to seriously diminish the impact of the new funds. There is little that

can be done, legally, to control that kind of substitution. But where

legal recourse is limited, moral suasion might be more effective.

One way. to increase _theinterests of local_ sponsors and non-CETA

institutionOn.minimizirasubstifutiOn is to give them a stake in the

action. unfortunately, is easier

.is

than done. Sponsors are

already being encouraged to build links with other agencies and private

sector interests. But this should be pushed even more, on the grounds

that a broader local base of participation_ will better assure a broader

COnSITtliency interested in stretching YEDPA resources to the maximum. It

i,-IOUTdie-naive66---ume that a coherent sense of purpose among many

players could be developed, or that this alone will prevent substitution.

But since the substitution phenomenon is so nebulous and difficult to

control at times, more effective solutions may not be feasible.

(6) Community based organizations are thoroughly involved in the

youth program delivery matrix. Although performance differentials are

hard to detect, the CBOs do broaden the base of local participation. The

current_provisions_Aivirathemspecial consideration in the selection. of

projram delivery agent-s_, and including them in the planning process should

be retained.

(7) YEDPA shows promise for altering institutional roles and

relationships at the local level. Local schools are central to this effort.

But there are some obvious limitations on how much change the Department of

Labor can leverage in LEAs, by using prime sponsors. LEAs are not accustomed

to receiving guidance from CETA prime sponsors. Under the best of conditions,

prime sponsors can hope to affect local education policy only marginally.

In some of the worst cases, LEAs and sponsors do not speak at all.

For these reasons, the Department of Labor should explore

alternate channels for affecting education decisionmaking at the local

level. Until those other channels for communication are identified and

utilized, many schools will fail to meet the needs of youths who could

otherwise be served under cooperative arrangements with LEAs and prime

sponsors, or even through the LEAs alone.

One of the significant patterns that seems to be emerging is the

presence of LEAs where CETA-private sector links exist. It is possible

that LEAs may provide the missing piece necessary to complete productive
- 51

relationships between public sector CETA -2fIc

employers. The Department of Labor shou'ld ,17;'

involve private sector ties, to see whet:-...v- Hai

The Department should also study some 6f ,ts

to evaluate their private sector links where f 3 L.- ate

the feasibility of such links where they t r,
PART TWO

CASE STUDIES
SECOND INTERIM REPORT

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ACT

CONNECTICUT

Peter S. Barth

May, 1978
Introduction to Second Interim Report

Four months ago a first interim report was prepared on the implementation of YEDPA by three prime.sponsors [Hartford Consortium (H),

City of Waterbury (W), Balance-of-State (BOS)] in Connecticut. Since

each of the prime sponsors began to operate programs according to

plans submitted by them to the Regional Office of DOL in Boston. The

first report concentrated on the planning process which was not finalized for all of the prime sponsors at the time of writing. While the

planning phase has now passed, not all programs under YETP and YCCIP are

actually in full operation. Indeed, certain programs have begun to enroll youths only in the past few weeks. Thus, certain "start-up" problems

of operation remain and uncertainties exist for purposes of evaluating

them. Nevertheless, a picture is beginning to emerge of how YEDPA is

being carried out. While there are certain commonalities for the three

prime sponsors that will be noted below, there are striking differences

as well. The latter are sufficiently large to suggest that broad, sweeping generalizations about YEDPA--in Connecticut at least--should be

avoided. A benefit of such variable experience may be that it allows us

to seek out those factors that contribute to these differences.

As in the first interim report, the framework for this one will be

a common outline prepared for each of the evaluators. Within that, the

experience of each of the prime sponsors will be described, along with a
- 2 -

summary, wherever that appears to be warranted. In some instances the

experience of each of the prime sponsors will be sufficiently similar

so as to allow a single response for all of them.
- J -

I.

A, B, C (H) At present the knowledge development activities of the prime

sponsor are more modest than originally proposed. In the grant applications the YETP suburban component was to allow for job site rotation to

provide enrollees with greater flexibility in dealing with changes in job

preferences and changes in occupation demands of the market place. At

present there is no job site rotation. Some rotation of jobs at a particular job site is planned if the program is renewed after September.

Originally, the YCCIP was said to be designed to test whetner labor intensive activity coupled with academic credit would induce participants to

return to school. Since school credit could not be arranged, that aspect

of knowledge development has been dropped.

What remains is first to compare the results of the YCCIP program

with the YETP programs to see if labor intensive projects with minimal

service support (i.e., YCCIP) will serve the enrollees any better or

worse in the job market than programs with greater support services and

more emphasis on education (i.e., YETP). The YETP groups will also be

compared with a control group consisting of eligible applicants not

selected for the program.

The objective here is to find out if the YETP enrollees perform any

better in the job market than those not selected. Also, since part of

the YETP program is designed to relate education to job skills, do YETP

enrollees have lower dropout rates than those not selected? Both the

YETP participants and those in the control group will be given pre and
and 'post program tests. Follow-up procedures to be implemented include

a comparison of pre and post test scores, Board of Education records for

graduates, State Employment Service records for job placement, and CMP

records for placement in other CETA programs. Whether any of the above

will actually be carried out, and whether such efforts shall be methodologically sound remains to be seen.

In addition to the above, the Prime Sponsor has asked CREC (the

program operator for YETP in the towns outside Hartford) to evaluate its

efforts. To do so they shall retain an education evaluator on the faculty of the University of Connecticut.

(BOS) (W) These two Prime Sponsors are not developing any real knowledge development programs. Essentially, they plan to closely monitor

their projects through the use of management information systems. Each

has developed a battery of forms that allows them to stay abreast of

activities by the program operators and the enrollees. This can serve

as an early warning system, provides for compliance checks, eliminates

major surprises at the end of the program and so on. In short, these

activities allow for better ongoing management of programs.

Aside from knowledge development in the formal sense, program

operators continue to gain valuable experience in the course of running

their programs. Some of this wisdom could be retained and shared out as

yet there is no formal mechanism for doing so. For example, one program

operator suggests that his problem of high turnover and absenteeism

could be reduced if he were allowed (the BOS will not) to develop a more
tangible reward for better attendance, performance and development.

This program operator also rued the absence of a well-written guide for

"rookie" operators so as to speed their learning based on other operator's

experience.

D. and Summary. While -..he Prime Sponsors find that the Labor Department has given them very little flexibility in planning and designing

programs, they have limitless room in creating useful knowledge development packages. Now! of this primes really knows what is wanted of them,

and none have the tools to provide useful and replicable guidance for

DOL. One of the three has not bothered to make even a pro forma effort

to do knowledge development. At the other end, another prime is going

through many of the motions, largely to satisfy DOL. As such they see

these efforts as one more hurdle that must be cleared in order to satisfy

Washington and the Regional Office in order to assure a continuing flow

of funds under CETA. By contrast, all the Prime Sponsors maintain management information systems and these would be operative regardless of

the new thrust for knowledge development. Thus, there is some new activity, but less than one might expect, and its productivity will probably

be very limited.

II.

A. 00 This prime sponsor appears to be very interested in the quality

of the work by youth. There is a continuing concern, however, that a much

wider range of meaningful youth jobs, particularly as this relates to the
6

individual's long term success in the labor market, is being closed off

by limiting work to the non-profit sector only. Since the bulk of these

youth will eventually be in the private sector when they are employed,

and since there are differences in working conditions between the two

sectors, this prime sponsor feels that the opportunities for training

youth are being limited.

(BOS) The program operators appear to be carefully watching the type of

jobs that are going to youth. Some job development actually began before the program started up, thus giving the program operator more time

to find suitable positions. At least one program operator, however, complained that the pressures to identify job sites for individuals before.

the person's attributes were known created some problems. Moreover, the

very low skill levels of many of the participants greatly restricted the

range of acceptable jobs.

(W) The Waterbury Prime Sponsor has developed a reporting system that

carefully tracks the work and progress of each youth participant. If

trainees or supervisors are dissatisfied with the pro' tees of the person,

the individual will be moved. During one of our site visits, two youths

were found to be sweeping floors, a lower level task than had been promised

to the program operator. Both the CETA staff and program operator personnel

assured us that the situation would be dealt with directly--either the youth

will be moved or they will be doing the work they were promised. Generally,

the work being done is both useful and contains some elements of training.
B. (H) Under YCCIP extra supervisors have been hired for one of the

major prc;ucts using Title 6 to assure a low ratio (about 4 to 1) of

enrollees to supervisors. In other YCCIP projects additional volunteers

are being used as supervisors. In one of the YETP p-ovrnms the program

operator is hiring work-site supervisors using Title 6 funds.

(BOS) On-site supervision, generally, involves a ratio of about 5 or 6

to 1. When specialized skills are being demonstrated staff may be moved

so as to provide more intensive supervision at that work-site. Absorption

of new duties by existing staff was more common in administrative activities than at the job supervision level. In each of the CBO's visited,

the counseling and/or supervisory staff had been expanded.

(W) There is no new or added supervision being brought on for the youth

programs. For the YETP programs, the job sites each take only a very

small number of trainees. In the YCCIP, there is very close supervision provided by the program operator but this largely entails the

shifting of time and work assignments rather than the employment of new

staff. In one instance, a trainee has already been moved into a supervisory program.

C. For none of the Prime Sponsors or program operators does there appear

to be a separate class of jobs reserved for youth. Some of the jobs are

quite low level but there is no evidence that these are only "fit" for

youth.
- 8 -

D. E. (H) Under YETP, at least one high school course must be related

to the job experience the enrollee is receiving. Obviously, there are

problems here given the delays in beginning the program and its relationship to the planning of curriculum by students during the school year cycle.

Remedial courses are being made available to enrollees either during a

free period at school or one day a week at the job site. There will be

no academic credit for YCCIP youth (all of whom are out-of-school) and

while there were plans for such credit for work experience under YETP,

there have been problems that are currently being resolved.

In YCCIP a professional group will audit the work-site supervisors

to assure that the training is being done well. Enrollees will be tested

at least twice in the course of the program as to the skills they have

acquired. There are plans to videotape the youth at work so as to better

evaluate and document their skills.

One of the program operators under YCCIP expressed some ambivalence

regarding the educational objectives of the program. The enrollees are

being taught some basic job skills so that they move into unsubsidized

employment when the program ends. Yet, the enrollees are to be encouraged

to return to school. If the program is successful in making the trainee

job-ready, the individual almost certainly will not return to school.

If the program fails to prepare the youth for work, only then will they

possibly return to school.

(BOS) There is a large range of variations found for this Prime Sponsor.

Two of the CBO's visited serve as polar examples. In one out-of-school
-9-

program in-class education (of up to 15 hours a week) is regarded a. an

integral part of the program. This classroom :raining does seem to be

closely related to the individual's work experience, especially for clients

who are placed in clerical positions. Youth in this program are also

strongly urged to prepare for high school equivalency exams. In another

CB0 there is no classroom training and the trainee immediately enters a

work experience program which involves a regular rotation of job sites.

This rotation is designed to expose the youth to a variety of occupations

and skills. These youth are also encouraged to pursue high school equivalency status or to return to school. Generally, there is no academic

credit being given under either YETP or YCCIP for work experience. Partially, this results because many of the programs involve out-of-school

youth who show little interest in securing such credit, or in returning

to school. For them the most likely road to a high school diploma is the

equivalency exam, and program operators are providing encouragement and

assistance along these lines.

In some programs, academic credit could easily be ju lifted. One

YCCIP program operated by an environmental education and xL1-,,Nicion center seemed to be offering a type of work experience wH'q reln1.1 directly

to certain segments of the high school curriculum, but no froil academic

credit had been arranged. In that program, as in most lf r7.. ers,

competencies are recorded and documented, often in the .,i monthly

progress reports submitted to the prime sponsor.
- 10 -

In other programs, the training may uarely conform co ti,e training

one expects in a high school. As such, efforts to force the program

operator to make work experience more "academic" would direA.Aly conflict

with efforts to assure that the youth are getting "marketable skills.

In such instances both the trainees and the program operators seem to

prefer the latter course.

(W) Most YETP participants are involved in conventional in-school education programs each day. For those who are not the W-v:erbury program is

clearly aimed at having most return to school in order to graduate.

Each of the programs is small enough that the part....cur needs of an individual can be linked to his/her work experience. Academic credit for

work experience is still at the discussion-negorfation stages. Generally,

there is Pot a serious linkage between work-site experience aad the content of the academic (full-time) training. In one n,royar. 'or in-school

youth, there is a special tutorial arranged each day after scool and work,

but it is not systematically tied to the job being perforrned.

Academic credit is being given for the classroom training being

given in art for YCCIP youth, all of whom are our-of-school. However,

since the education program is being given iv local community college,

and since these are persons without high school diplomas, the academic

credit is of no use to them presently. Should they ever finish high

school and eventually enter an institution of higher education, then

these credits may be of use to them.

F. There has been no obvious restructuring of jobs for youth. The major

accommodation that has occurred is simnly to adjust for the available

hours of work for in-school youth.
G. Youth from each of the Prime Sponsors' areas and from a variety of

programs were interviewed. At this early stage, at least, they all see

some value to them in terms of career development from participating.

Frankly, it seemed premature to be asking such questions and it was difficult to judge the extent of their conviction on this issue. Some

participants may have responded thin way because they sensed that this

is what we wanted to hear. Morem,e.:, the youth seemed to like earning

a paycheck and their fear of los'ng ch4., may have prompted their responses

to this query.

Generally, the persons interviewed appeared to be very uncertain

about their career plans. Moreover, where they thought they knew what

they wanted, their knowledge of job market realities appeared to be

shaky at best. One girl, working on an art project for school dropouts that so far has meant painting signs, saw her training as helpful

in becoming both an interior decorator and a clothes designer. This may

be more or less likelier than the parolee in a 4-H camp conservation project who expects to race motorcycles professionally. By contrast, an

emotionally handicapped veteran in the same project wants to pursue a

career in camp counseling or forestry.

In Hartford, members of YCCIP are being trained in construction

type skills. While these youth can readily see the links between their

activities and eventual entry into the labor market, jobs for construction workers in Connecticut have been extremely scarce, relative to supply.

Thus, ):de participants _Ear benefit from learning basic industrial discipline
- 12 -

but even here, where the relationship to private sector employment activity is most clearly identified, there may be little congruence between

expectations and future reality.

H. (U) The YCCIP projects in Hartford will have several identifiable

outputs. Some of these include a produce garden, an art project with

posters, signs and building murals (designed to provide a greater sense

of community in a largely Hispanic neighborhood) and a photography exhibit.

Most significant, however, will be an effort to renovate two buildings

in that community.

(BOS) Most YCCIP projects here will involve some tangible product.

Some include the renovation of structures, as well as conservation activities.

(W) The YCCIP project involves the youth in preparing art projects. Cur -

rently, they are completing individual murals on the walls of the YMCA

swimming pool. Other such projects are lined up for when this has been

completed.

Summary - Item II.

The problem of timing, described in the first interim report,

greatly impaired the planning process. Now, delays in implementing the

projects--much of this attributable to unrealistic time frames--have handicapped some of the projects. Job development was delayed as was the identification of trainees. Obviously, all this contributes to a less than

ideal matching of trainee needs and appropriate work sites. Yet, each of

the Prime Sponsors and the program operators are attempting to avoid a

straight income-maintenance program by identifying real work experience

for these youth,
- 13 -

Moreover, the timing problems that hampered the planning effort an

delayed the onset of the programs has led to almost no satisfactory resJlution of the issue of providing academic credit for work experience.

Similar problems will probably be much rarer after this initial experienc

It should also be noted that a rigorous definition of "quality" has

been avoided here. It is extraordinarily difficult to find agreement

as to what this means, particularly when the assessment is made by

middle-class individuals who may scarcely sense the true labor market

opportunities for unemployed, minority, school-dropouts. One 'lth grade

dropout indicated to me that if he returned to school, he would like to

begin in the 9th grade since he felt everything since then had "missed

him". Clearly, the basic quantitative and communicative skills needed

for most quality jobs--either presently or in his future--are lacking.

Only if those are provided will the quality of employment have meaning

for him.

III.

A. (H) The Mayor's Youth Commission elected two members to serve on the

Youth Planning Council; one is a voting member, the other is an alternate.

Unfilled youth vacancies still exist on the YPC.

(BOS) At the BOS level, youth representatives on the youth sub-Committee

of the Manpower Planning Council have largely been drawn from youth organizations in the state. The individuals selected are typically officers

of the organization. One YETP-eligible youth was also selected for the

Youth Subcommittee.
- 14 -

(W) Youth members of the council were selected from a list of nominees

submitted to CETA by each of the program operators. Each provided two

names and two finalists were chosen. The final selection was based on

CETA staff recommendations and an eadasemett by the full Planning Council.

B. (H) One of the two elected youths on the YPC was interviewed.

She found the position exciting and important and clearly attached

"positive value" to her involvement. However, she also felt the older

members of the Council often wasted the Council's time talking around the

issues. Generally, the YPC has been a largely mo forma exercise. The

only significant decision it has made was selecting among several projects

to absorb the $75,000 in "lag funds" that developed in the course of implementing YCCIP. On a more positive note, one of the youths on the YPC

introduced a motion to open YCCIP recruitment to any eligible consortium

resident. This motion was approved by the RAMPS (CETA's planning council)

Executive Committee. (But all agreed that it was not likely that nonHartford youth would get involved.)

(BOS) One of the youth members (a former CETA program participant) of

the Manpower Planning Council's Youth Subcommittee was interviewed. His

impression of the Council's work and the role of youth was quite favorable. He felt that some decisions had been affected by the presence of

youth members. He also argued that a larger number of youth on the Subcommittee was warranted and desirable.
- 15 -

(W) One of the two youth on the Council was interviewed. While he

thought it constructive to have youth on the Council, his impressions of

the growl's contribution were not very favorable. Absenteeism at meetings

has been common. Much of the time is given over to CETA staff discussing

programs and money, subjects of little interest for him. He and the other

youth speak rarely. However, he did like the fact that youth were given a

role in decision-making in a youth program.

C. (H) That there are still youth vacancies on the Youth Planning Council

suggests that youth participation is not a high priority in Hartford.

Youth are not active in administering, evaluating or delivering services.

(BOS) In the BOS, there appears to be more improvement in terms of getting

youth participation at the local level than at the prime sponsor level.

This is to be expected as the program moves further away from the initial

planning and implementation stages. At the end of 1977 the 13 Manpower

Planning Areas in the BOS did not have separate Youth Councils or Youth

Subcommittees. Some MPA's now have such bodies, and in some areas they

appear to be a principal source of youth input. The youth selected to

serve on such councils seem to be drawn from local youth groups or are

former participants in youth service programs. Some CBO's have established

their own internal youth councils to evaluate the effectiveness of the

program and to recommend certain changcs. In one of the YCCIP projects,

a youth from the same operator's YETP program is employed as a secretary and

is involved in the day-to-day administration of the camp.
- 16 -

(W) The sole input oi youth in these programs occurs through the participation of the two members of the Youth Council.

D. Several youth were interviewed who have participated in other CETA

programs. Other youth were uncertain as to what programs they have been

involved in earlier. No clear picture emerges. Some preferred YEDPA on

the grounds of more interesting work. Others felt it was less interesting

but better paying--though this seemed to refer to total weekly wages,

rather than the hourly (minimum) wage rate. A number of youth expressed

an eagerness to work more hours--even those now paid on the basis of a

35 hour week--to increase their overall income.

Summary

Youth involvement thus far satisfies the de jars requirements

of the DOL but can hardly be described as significant. Instead, the

role of youth is adequate enough to be able to refute any charge that

this is a youth program without any input from them. If, however, one

seeks a genuine and substantive contribution by them in the programs,

that will prove to be disappointing.

IV.

A. (H) The Hartford prime sponsor defines "economically disadvantaged".

as those at 85% or below of the llwer living standard criterion "as

defined in section 94.4 (nnn) of CETA". Preference is given to this group

simply by ensuring that 90% of those selected for the program so qualify.

Data regarding the breakdown of enrollees by the three income categories

(i.e., below 70%, 70Z -80%, and above 85%) will be available in the next

report.

S
- 17 -

(BOS) It appears that most of the YETP and YCCIP projects funded by the

BOS have served only "economically disadvantaged" youth. Many operators

seam unaware that the YEDPA legislation did not call for exclusive targeting on this grout, but instead called only for "special preference" for

the economically disadvantaged. In any event, there is little overt

problem with "advantaged" youth being served at the expense of "disadvantaged" ones.

Some program operators report that the actual composition of their

enrollment reflects an even lower economic status than specified in their

proposal. One operator indicated that their recruitment followed closely

the planning targets, and hence the composition of youth in their program

is almost identical to their initial plans. Another YCCIP operator had

been successful in filling positions with economically-disadvantaged youth,

but had experienced difficulty in recruiting minorities due in part to

the location of the project.

(W) Waterbury CETA is unable, presently, to provide answers on this matter. The criterion specified under the initial authorization in their

plan was 85% of BLS lower living standard. Iu turn that was the level

which they asked the Employment Service to verify for them. All Waterbury

YETP and YCCIP youth were below the 85% criterion but no further refinement of that is currently available.

B. (H) There appears to be no systematic way to verify income data provided by the applicant. For out-of-school youth, employment and unemployment compensation records are checked, but there is no check for in-school
- 18 -

youth. The prime sponsor couli ask CREC and the Hartford Board of &mication to include W-4 framn as part of the income record, but the youth does

not have to comply. CETA is responsible for certifying the income, age,

and residence statue of those in the balance of the consortium. The

Hartford Board of Education assumes this responsibility for the urban

YETP program. Apparently this status is not reconfirmed once the youth

is in the program.

(BOS) (W) Certification for all progral operators in BOS and in CETA

Waterbury is performed by the Employment Service. There is a legal-technical issue (dispute) as to the responsibility in cases where an improper

certification has been granted. Regardless of the outcome of this, the

process is being left to the Employment Service.

C. (H) Job slots have been set aside in the YETP program to be filled

by women (50%), handicapped (7%), and those with limited English speakir4;

ability (15%). The CBO's and NBO's have been encouraged to ref e:

who would qualify for these slots to the prime sponsor. No data are available yet since the program has only begun very recently.

(BOS) All program operators contacted seem to have on-going procedures

for giving special preference to minorities, women, offenders, handicapped,

etc. Typically, they rely upon a network of referral relationships with

other community agencies, guidance centers, correctional facilities, parole

officers, hospitals, youth organizations, etc. In addition to these links,

some CBO's have established their own recruiting department.
- 19 -

(W) There is a YETP project aimed at retarded or slow youth in order to

provide them some work experience. One large program operator has traditionally provided services to the black community and is now finding few

white youth participating in this project.

D. There is no evidence available to us on the problems of non-CBO's

in finding economically disadvantaged youth. But for all of the prime

sponsors and program operators contacted, the response has been a clear

and unambiguous one--there is no problem in locating participants who

meet the DOL criteria. Instead, the problem universally (at least in

Connecticut) has been how to ration the limited number of program slots

among the number of eager and seemingly eligible youth.

E. Based on superficial impressions and somewhat casual (and awkward)

interviews with trainees, they do appear to be poor youth. It would be

a mistake, however, to underestimate the "street-wiseness" of youth, both

poor and non-poor. The YEDPA programs are attractive to unemployed youth

and as such word can spread quickly both as to its existence and the criteria for selection. In that case the prospective enrollee may bend or

shape the facts slightly so as to qualify for acceptance. We are no better equipped than are the Prime Sponsors or the Employment Service to

check out the extent or this fudging. It is clear, however, that the enrollees we have met thus far appear to be economically needy at least, and

in other cases have additional needs for assistance, e.g., retardation,

language handicaps, poor school records, etc.
- LU

V.

A, B, C. (H) The number of unemployed, out-of-school youth (ages 16-21)

in the Hartford Consortium is approximately 3,600. The number of youth

employed under Title I of CETA as of the end of 1977 was 832 (21 years

of age and under). Hence those employed under CETA Title I represent

about one-quarter of those youth believed to be unemployed earlier in

the year. In Hartford YCCIP is directed solely at the out-of-school youth;

this program will hire a negligible number (about 50).

About 14% of the 75,600 in-school youth in the consortium are thought

to be at the 85% or below the lower living standard. This aulounts to

about 10,580 young people (age 14-20). YETP is projected to enroll about

350, with lag funds perhaps increasing this total somewhat. This represents a little more than three percent of the economically disadvantaged

youthin.the consortium. Of course, some of these disadvantaged youth,

possible 30 percent, already hold part-time jobs after school. This reduces the pool to 7,400 economically disadvantaged, in-school, unemployed

youth, and raises the coverage of YETP up to between four and five percent- -

still hardly an impressive figure.

There appears to be some substitution occurring in Hartford, but not

necessarily within CETA programs. Since CETA money is available for

particular programs, other public sources of funding may be drying up.

For example, because the San Juan Center is funded under YCCIP, it may

be that Community Block Development Grants are less likely to be directed

towards the Center. Such a process simply may be permitting funding for

other projects, even in the Hartford region.
- 21 -

Community Development money has also largely dried up in the funding of the Workplaces program under the Hartford Board of Education. The

program has been retained virtually intact, however, as the urban component of YETP; those currently enrolled in the system were brought into

the system before the YETP funds began to flow. If it was the case that

the Workplaces program would have died when funding ran out in December,

then YETP has provided positions that would have otherwise disappeared.

But if the funding dried up because of the availability of YETP funding,

then substitution has taken place. Even in the latter case the Community

Development money diverted from Workplaces was freed up for other local

requirements (but these do not necessarily involve youth).

(BOS) The following table shows Title I youth enrollments in the BOS

for the quarters ending 12/31/76, 3/31/77, 12/31/77 and 3/31/78.

Group 12/31/76 3/3'../77

<18 1799 (44.1%) 1081 (18.6)

19-21 816 (20.0) 1551 (26.7)

"youth" subtotal 2615 (64.1) 2632 (45.3)

other ages 1464 (35.9) 3174 (54.7)

total 4079 5806

Group 12/31/77 3/31/78

<18 9'.3 (24.9) 1198 (22.1)

19-21 819 (22.h) 1272 (23.4)

"youth" subtotal 1732 (47.3) 2470 (45.5)

other ages 1932 (52.7) 2960 (54.5)

total 3664 5430
- 22 -

The figures in parentheses show the percentage of total enrollments in

Title I programs. Note that absolute figures between December and March

are not really comparable. Since the program year begins in the fall,

March totals for that program year should exceed December totals for the

same program year (e.g., 5806 for 3/31/77 versus 4069 for 12/31/76).

One would expect age composition to be somewhat comparable.

Several patterns in the above figures are wor:.h notlug. First,

between 12/31/76 and 3/31/77, there is a sharp decrease in the ;"ercentage

of Title I "youth" due to a large increase in the over 21 group, The

absolute number of "youth" enrollees remains virtually constant (2i-4.

2632), but the composition of youth shifts from the 18-or-undm

group towards the 19-21 year old group. (Notes t117'4: a similar shifc

the age composition of the "youth" group does t.:at .-Oce place the fc,:uv:i-g

year, between 12/31/77 and 3/31/78). This shift well before YEDPA,

and does not seem to be related to substitution.

The second trnnd worth noting is that since 3/31/77, the percentage

of "youth" in Title I programs has rematned fairly constant (45.3, 47.3,

45.5). Over this period, the split between 18-and-under and 19-21 year

old youth has also been quite stable. There is no indicatIn that the

prime sponsor increased Title I youtt, enrollments durirg the quarter ending 12/31/77, for the purpose of tracsferrivg the clients into YEDPA

programs.

A third it of note is that Title I youth enrollments on 3/31/78

are quite comparable to youth enrollment's on 3/31/77. It may be too early

to tell, but there is little evidence yet that YEDIA has cut into :Ltle I

youth services.

0

ka 6
-23-

Turning no to the "universe of need" in the BOS, two groups are

of major interest: (1) 16-21 year olds who are out of school and unemployed; and (2) in-school "poverty youth". Based upon prime sponsor

planning documents, the following table provides an estimate of the size

and age/sex composition of the first group.

Male

Aves 16-19

ieemale

# out-of-school: 11,645 9,527

participation rate: 87.4 89.5

# in the labor force: 10,178 8,527

unemployment rate: 20.1 19.5

# unemployed: 2,046 1,663

Ages 20-^i*

Male 'ecmale

# out-of-school: 10,278 9,410

participation rate: 91.5 90.4

# in the labor force: 9,404 7,603

unemployment rate: 14.4

# unemployed: 1,354 1,011

Of the approximately 143,700 BOS youth in the 16-21 age ',racket,

39,900 (21,900 males and 17,900 females) are estiniatel to be ,It-of-school.

Of this out-of-school group (analyzed in the above table:, 6,100 (3,400

males and 2,700 females) are thought to be unemployt

In looking at in-school youth, it is difficult to assess the size

of the group who might benefit by CETA activities. The tc-al BOS In-school

population (16-21) is about 103,900 (49,90u males and r4,00( females).

While YEDPA programs are not restricted to economically disadvantaged youth,

*Information for the 21 year old group was not given in BOS plans. Data

on the 20 year old group was simply replicated to account `or chem.
-24-

virtual;; all programs in the BOS are focused on this group. It therefore seems reasonable to look at the economically disadvantaged segment

of in-a_hool youth. The prime sponsor estimates that about 15.2 percent

of BOS youth in the 14-19 age bracket are "poverty youth". Applying this

figure to 16-21 year old in-school youth, one concludes that about 14,800

of tte 103,900 in-school youth might be regarded as "poverty youth" and

likely candidates for CETA assistance.

While these figures are crude, the "universe of need" for the BOS

seems to consist of about 21,900 youth (6,100 out-of-school and unemployed,

15,800 in-school "poverty youth"). The earlier tables give some idea about

the magnitude of Title I youth operations in the BOS. If no substitution

occurs, and present levels of funding are maintained, YEDPA should provide

about 1,600 additional slots. About 200 of these are YCCIP slots. The

other 1,400 are YETP participants, of which about 250-300 will receive

only transition services from LEA's and will not engage in any work experience programs.

(W) For the quarter ending March 1977, there were 314 youth out of a total

of 549 participants under Title I. For the same quarter in calendar 1978

there were 313 youth out of 516 persons. Thus, the proportion of youth

actually climbed from 1977 to 1978 (from 57.2% to 60.7%).

It is not possible to reconstruct the potential universe of need for

Waterbury based on their plan, at this time. Apparently, there were approximately 700 youth eligible to participate among in-school persons and a

somewhat smaller number for out-of-school youngsters.

SJ
- 4a -

YETP and YCCIP will create approximately 140 positions for youth

in Waterbury. This, in conjunction with the 313 youth served under Title I

suggest that CETA may be affecting a sizeable share of the eligible youth

in Waterbury.

D. Aside from some concerns expressed by organized labor during the

planning phase in Hartford, unions have not raised Rey questions about

youths substituting for adult workers in any of these area'.

Summary

There is no evidence to suggest that YEDPA has caused CETA to shift

other resources away from youth. Nor does there appear to have been

stockpiling of youth under Title I until projects and slots opened up in

YETP or YCCIP. Indeed, there was no difficulty, yet, in finding quickly

adequate numbers of eligible youngsters.

Some substitution of other sorts and not involving non-YEDPA DOL

programs has probably occurred. For example one CETA agency used YEDPA

to meet a long-felt need to put a project in a heavily Puerto aican area.

By now doing so, it removes that need and other programs need not be so

targeted. But this does not mean that youth per se will be affected by

nis type of policy.

VI.

A. B. (H) Under YCCIP two buildings are to be renovated in the heart of

a major Puerto Rican community. (Not all the effort involas YEDPA persons.)

One building that had been scheduled for demolition uas turned over to
-2bneighborhood organizations for $1 while the other has been leased to that

group by a Hartford bank at a rent well below the market rate. The former structure has been mortgaged through the Public Housing Corporation

of Hartford--at below market rates of interest--in order to fund the supplies needed for the renovation work.

Additionally, land has been provided for gardening and other projects from the State, 4-H, the Knox Foundation and a local merchant.

Thus far little has been obtained from other sources for the YETP projects.

Obviously, the training given youth placed in work experience programs

means that some support is being given by these non-profit organizations.

(BOS) The experiences here vary widely. Some .perators report virtually

no contributions of time, space, or equipment from private sources, while

others cite numerous examples (lumber and other construction materials,

tools, expertise, etc.). In general, the YETP programs which immediately

place youth in a job tend to rely less heavily upon direct contributions.

General cash contributions have been used by some CBO's to help purchase

supplies for YCCIP projects. Portions of CSA grants have also been allocated to bookkeeping activities associated with YEDPA programs. The State

Employment Service provides referral services and verifies applicant eligibility. Other examples of "no-cost" services used to complement YEDPA

activities include: transportation services by NECTAR (a DOT-funded regional mini-bus system), speakers from the 4-H Club and other vocationallyoriented youth groups, and interpreters provided by a local community action organization.

9
- 27 -

(W) A new staff posit/cm was created in Waterbury or a youth sptzcialist.

Waterbury, as noted earlier, relies heavily on the State Employment Service for its certification procedure. The YCCIP project depends far less

on materials (other than small amounts of paint and brushes) than some

others found in Connecticut.

VII.

A. (H) Under YETP neither the contract with CREC (the program operator

for the towns other than Hartford in the Consortium) nor the contract

with the Hartford Board of Education has been finalized. The "scope of

service" has yet to be settled. Apparently, part of the problem under

the urban component is that the Board of Education aas been trying to

shape YETP into the mold of its Workplaces program. Despite this the Board

has been very eager to launch the program. Indeed, the Hartford Board has

actually launched the program even though funding arrangements with CETA

have not yet been finalized.

The de/ay with the balance of the consortium appears to stem from

the fact that CREC must deal with 23 separate school boards. There appears to be a reluctance to become involved with programs whose funding

will eventually dry up. Each enrollee must receive official approval from

an agent of the school before the student can participate in the program.

This "sign-off" requirement has slowed the process down considerably.

There are no LEA agreements under YCCIP.

(BOS) LEA agreements have been successfully negotiated with the Regional

Educational Service Centers. These contracts have been approved by the

Regional Office of DOL.
-23-

(W) The LEA agreements for Waterbury have been finalized. They provide

for some guidance and career counseling to be given to youth along with

some assistance in making placements for them.

B. (H) The CETA planning cycle under YETP has not been compatible with

the planning cycles of local schools. The balance of the consortium has

yet to get off the grou x4 in part because the students' schedules were

frozen into place before the details of YETP were disseminated. The urban component was able to begin only because the Workplaces program had

already existed, thus the students',schedules had already been designed

to accommodate the time for work.

CREC is now planning the fall class schedules in view of YETP

quirements. Another major problem under the suburban component has been

the logistics and the financing of a network of transportation necessary

to support the program. Since the program is spread across 23 towns,

some of them with potentially only few participants, there is uncertain

responsibility for transporting students to job sites. This has alz.o contributed to the delay in implementation.

(BOS) Initially, there seem to have been some problems, since the YEDPA

programs began mid-way through the school year. However, only about a

month separates the beginning of the new fiscal year and the start of the

new school year, and the problems in coordinating planning activities have

diminished as a result of this improved timing. There do remain some minor

problems in coordinating planning activities for the upcoming school year,
- 29-

prompted by the extended summer vacation period for educational personnel.

It appears that much of the planning by the prime must be completed before

key educational personnel depart for the summer.

(W) Waterbury has faced some problems in coordinating the planning cycle

of YEDPA with that of the local schools. While they have accommodated

themselves to this disparity, it would greatly facilitate Their program

if the planning could be integrated.

C. (H) In the City of Hartford, the Board of Education awards credit

through the local schools. For the other towns in the Consortium, CREC

(the program operator) can award credit either through the State Board

of Education or with the local boards of education.

(BOS) Where it exists, academic credit arranged at the local level

between the service providers and local boards of education. These flexible procedures are subject to limitations and guidelines specified by

the State Education Department, and there is apparencly some effort in

the latter agency to establish a broader and more consistent policy for

resolving questions of academic credit. The State Education Department

is also considering applying for discretionary CETA funds to establish

a pilot program in this area.

(W) This is still being established in Vaterbury.

D. (H) All YETP projects involve LEA's and the agreements will provide

for academic credit in Hartford. The YCCIP in Hartford does not involve

academic credit or an LEA.
-30-

(BCS) In BOS, academic credit is covered in LEA agreements, and in some

cases for YETP projects not involving LEA's. Similar arrangements exist

for some YCCIP projects.

(W) Academic credit is being "discussed" for YETP projects that involve

both LEA's an& others. Academic credit is given for the in-school (community college) training under YCCIP, but it has little real pertinence

presently for these youth.

E. This applies only in Hartford and there, all YETP are persons in school.

F. Out-of-school youth are not being served by school administered programs

that fall outside the "22 percent LEA agreements".

G. The schools do not appear to be expanding their cooperative/distributive education programs because of YEDPA or agreements with CETA. The

regional educational service centers will likely add some career counselors

to their staffs to help to administer these programs where they are the

program operators.

In some cases cooperative education teachers see YEDPA as being

duplicative. Moreover, there have been complaints by them that funding

for essentially similar programs is much higher under YEDPA than for the

usual school-supported programs. AR such these teachers have said that

with commensurate budgets they could perform far better services than

they have till now. Some teachers, counselors and administ-:ators complain

that YEDPA involves one more chore for them without either additional compensation or release from other duties.
- 31 -

A different problem exists where cooperative/distributive education

teachers are essentially required to recommend only eligible youth for

positions under YEDPA. Since many of these teachers are accustomed to

working with some of a school's best and most job-ready students, there

are obvious difficulties when they are limited to eligible students only,

many of whom are far from job-ready. While such problems may appear

to be small and essentially personal, they can lead to an undermining of

the program's effectiveness.

H. Aside from the art course taught for YCCIP at Mattatuck Community

College, there are no linkages. The prospects of using this course to

open up more programs for CETA youth in the future seem very unlikely.

I. In Hartford the LEA agreements are YETP while in Waterbury there

were no particular problems--orepecial benefits--in having this flexibility. However,' this was not true for BOS. While the law and regulations seemed to permit increased flexibility in negotiating LEA agreements, it appears that the procedures used to approve such agreements

have btaen less flexible than in some previous programs. The Regional

Office apparently required that all LEA agreementi negotiated by the BOS

be submitted directly to their office for final approval, despite the

fact that YETP rules and regulations stipulate that ".,. only (applicants

and LEA's) may be signator!es to the agreement." (Federal Register, 42,

9/16/77, p. 46729). This additional step required about a month to complete. It was regarded by BOS staff as an unnecessary and unproductive

delay.

9i
-32-

J. K. Not applicable.

L. For each of the prime sponsors, linkages to the private sector are

fragmentary or non-existent. Aside from representation on planning

councils and a few types of assistance (a bank providing a low interest

mortgage on property) the private sector contacts are all with nonprofit groups e.g., chambers of commerce, community organizations, etc.

Essentially, there is no contact.

M. Each of the prime sponsors is stepping up its activities in assuring

that labor market information is being provided to youth. For example,

a number of program operators in BOS draw upon a computerized guidance

job information system operated by the Area Cooperative Education Services

group in New Haven. Counseling of youth occurs in all programs. Moreover, where youth work alongside adults they are probably receiving substantial amounts of "occupational information", especially when this is

their first experience in working with adults.

Other. At least one other type of institutional change that has occurred

due to YEDPA is the development of new ties between CBO's. There are

several examples in Connecticut where CBO's are now working cooperatively

where they had not previously done so. One of these is occurring in the

City of Hartford where a significant cooperative venture among all major

Puerto Rican community groups has developed, partially, around the YCCIP

projects.
-33-

VIII.

A. There is substantial CBO activity under YEDPA but it appears to be

in line with the previous CETA experience. The more experienced CBO's

were largely responsible for designing their own projects while those with

less experience under CETA seem to have had their projects more planned

out for them by the prime sponsors. The former situations were much more

common than the latter.

B. This matter varies widely in the state. Further, some project operators have never operated a youth program before but they have run programs

with youth participants. Some more inexperienced program operators express

surprise at the extent of absenteeism and turnover but there is no evidence,

so far, that these programs are actually experiencing more of this than

among more experienced CBO's, NBO's, etc. Indeed, thus far it is too soon

to expect to identify different outcomes for the different program operators.

C. (H) The YETP projects in Hartford are entirely run under LEA's. Each

seem adequately equipped to draw on a large pool of potentially eligible

youth. The role of CBO's is limited here to YCCIP -where a major program

operator is a newcomer to the CETA arena. CBO's mat, rave an advantage in

getting to out-of-school youth but are probably less well able to identify

in- achoolers. Intake for programs is orchestrated by Hartford CETA.

YETP youth are paid the minimum wage. YCCIP partiCipants are paid

$3.50/hour for building renovation work. A comparable non-CETA project

in the area pays only the minimum wage. Other YCCIP enrollees are paid

$3.00/hour and are anticipating a hike to $3.25 hallway through the program.
-34-

(BOS) The degree to which the operator seems to be "pluggea" into a sv1rvice delivery network seems to be less a function et its CBO-status

than its previous experience. In general, the moat experienced the operating agency, the more extensive the network of referral and supportive

services upon which it can draw. This, of course, is one potential drawback to a "new faces" approach; YEDPA's emphasis on "track record", however, seems to have dominated the selection process. While some operators have fairly self-contained service components, the "service-sharing"

mode is more common.

In comparing CBO's with other types of delivery agents, :here appear to be few differences in composition of the clientele or the rates

of pay (all are minimum-wage positions). The greatest difference in administrative costs are not between CBO's and non-CBO's, but rather among

CBO's themselves. Even here the range is only from about 7 to 15 percent

of total costs.

(W) Waterbury, as a small city only, benefits by having all of the

gram operators known to each other and to other agencies in the community

that can provide or service CETA youth. Perhaps the ultimate in this type

of setting occurs where the largest single CBO involved in YEDPA (and

much of CETA's previous work) is housed in a building that holds almost

every major private provider of social services in Waterbury. Some of

the youth now enrolled have virtually grown up in this center and a number continue to participate in other programs there. The only way this

93
- 35 -

agency has not been "plugged-Li" is that whites have identified it as serving blacks only, and there has been little success, thus far, in

shaking this image.

All YEDPA youth are paid at the minimum wage as are other CETA

youth.

D. As noted in the first interim report the prime sponsors, typically,

had a very small range of choice among potential program operators.

However, for all three the bulk of the projects under YEDPA are being

operated by the "old pros", i.e., the groups that historically have been

active in CETA activities. While there are a few newcomers in the fold,

there are no obvious agents conspicuous by their absence.

2

A. In Hartford and BOS the inventories were not prepared until the planning process was completed. A very complete list had been available for

Waterbury CETA. Most CETA staff regard the development of the inventory

as a bit of needless busywork. Some seem resigned to complying with requests such as this, to placate some "chief" in eider Boston or Washington.

The whole purpose of the inventory was never made clear to the primes and

consequently was treated as another necessary coldition for funding, but

hardly as a source of guidance.

B. BOS and Waterbury fully depend on the Employment Service for their

certification. ES is also a source 'f referrals for each prime sponsor.

A number of the CBO's have informal arrangements with state agencies

10 1)
-36-

such as Vocational Rehabilitation. Generally, however, there nave been

very few non-financial service agreements.

C. The BOS has created a new administrative unit for youth programs

which is staffed by two full-time employees. Much of the burden of

YEDPA, however, is simply being absorbed by the primes by spreading staff

responsibility more thinly. Basically, no changes have been made by

CETA in intake, referral offices, etc. There is criticism about the

lengthy intake and referral procedure in Hartford, but this problem has

existed there for some time.

D. (H) SPEEDY is well integrated with YEDPA programs. Those in SPEEDY

programs automatically qualify for other YEDPA programs. The LEA's and

CBO's involved with YEDIA are also running SPEEDY programs so it is easy

to transfer from one to the other.

(BOS) In many cases, the same operators have been designated to run summer programs, so much of the administrative and operating linkage

occurs at that level. There was some feeling at the prime sponsor level

that rather than appropriating funds for a separate summer program (which

was perceived as far less flexible than YETP or YCCIP), it would have

been more efficient to expand the initial commitment to YETP and YCCIP

and simply permit a shift or expansion into summer-type services where

appropriate.

(W) The largest program operator under YEDPA, will probably play the

same role for the summer programs in Waterbury. The same labcr market

orientation will be given to all youths entering these programs as to

those who will participate in YCCIP or YETP.

101
X.

A. (H) There have been no major structural adaptations to YEDPA programs. If YEDPA were to shutdown today there would be no disruption with

the prime sponsor.

(BOS) YEDPA has resulted in some structural changes at both the prime

sponsor level (e.g. creation and staffing of a new Youth Unit) and the

delivery agent level (e.g. changes in the focus of some existing CBO's

and the participation of some new program operators). If the present

youth programs are not refunded or not replaced by a comparable program

which focuses upon youth employment problems, then some of these structural

changes would certainly be reversed.

(W) In Waterbury there were no structural changes due to YEDPA. This

prime sponsor, for several reasons including its size and constituency

(a single city), is easily the most adaptible of the prime sponiors examined in Connecticut. Closing out youth programs will not disrupt the

existing structures.

B. (H) The Youth Planning Council, would likely be discarded with a

YEDPA phase out. CETA Hartford is very much in the political arena,

far more so than the other two primes. Indeed, there is "wide involvement" already in CETA, but a role is played only by those with some political muscle.

(BOS) While few of the procedural changes seem to be regarded as severe

administrative burdens, it seems likely that some of them might dissolve
-38-

if YEDPA is phased out (e.g. the Youth Councils). Other changes in reporting procedures and proposal solicitation (open RFP) seem likely to

be retained.

(W) The staff in Waterbury have done an excellent job of minimizing

flack, either from political forces or specific interest groups. As

such, the staff runs an efficient ship with limited resistance in the

city, and no serious concern about "wider involvement". Thus, for example, the Youth Council might survive the demise or phasing-out of

YEDPA, but the program decisions are likely to be no different if such

a council survived or not. This is not to imply that the staff can simply disregard the interests of various political, community or other

groups in Waterbury. Instead, they have survived well, both by providing a good program and by recognizing the needs of these groups. Further, the overall political environment in which they operate is far less

contentious than in Hartford or many other cities.
The Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects

Act of 1977 in Albuquerque, Bernalillo

County, N.M.; the Coastal Bend

Manpower Consortium, Texas; and El Paso

and El Paso County, Texas: The Implementation Phase
Interim Report #2

National Council on

Employment Policy

May 26, 1978

The Youth Employment md Demonstration Projects

Act of 1977 in Albuquerque, 9e4nalillo

County, N.M.; the Coastal Bend

Manpower Consortium, Texas; and El Paso

and El Paso County, Texas: The Implementation Phase

by Vernon M. Briggs, Jr.*

I. Introduction

During the planning phase (i.e., Fall 1977) of the Youth Employment

and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977 (YEDPA), it has been expected that

most of the projects would be operational by early January 1978 in all three

localities under review. In none did this prove to be the case. Using the

criteria of when youth were actually enrolled, no programs were operational

in January; some were in Febrdiry; most were in March; and a few more (but

not all) were in place by April. Delays in approval of plans and delays in

funding were the story of all the programs. The major difficulties confronting the prime sponsors during this period, therefore, were adjusting their

operations to these delays.

In moat instances, the delays can be attributed to the totally

unrealistic time allowed for the planning period. Several specific explanations for the delays are apparent. First, the legislation was complex and

it took some time before all of the clarifications and im%erpretations were

received and understood by the prime sponsors. Secondly, there is an inadequate recognition at the national level of the environment in which prime

sponsors operate. That is to say, the actions of prime sponsors require

approval of numerous other groups before they can act. Aside from approval

of this our planning councils, it is also necessary to gain approval from

either their respective city councils or of their consortium members. In

addition, YEDPA mandates a role for educational agencies. These agencies

also must obtain approval of their school boards and, in some instances, of

teacher's associations. On top of all of this, the end product must then

be approved by the regional office of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).

There simply is no way to expidite these procedural steps. Thirdly, during

the early months of 1978, all of the prime sponsors indicated that they

were under extreme pressure from DOL to give first priority to increasing

enrollments in the public service employment program (i.e., Title VI of

CETA). YEDPA was relegated to a backburner. Programs largely for adults

*Professoy of Economics, University of Texas at Austin.

1
2

were again given preference over those for youth. All of these factors

served to hamper the expected implementation schedule of YEDPA during the

time period in which its programs were planned to be fully operational.

Aside from the delayed schedule, the reception to the various

projects has been very positive and no prime sponsor has had any difficulty

finding eager participants.

II. Overview of Interim Developments in Each Locality

A. Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, N.M.

on January 12, 1976, it was announced that Albuquerque was a

success2ul applicant for a Tier II Entitlement (Subpart 1 of YEDPA) grant.*

Only 10 such grants were given nationwide. The entitlement program has

affected the time available of the prime sponsor to devote to the other

sections of the Act which are the subject of this review. The prime sponsor

has not added any additional staff for the Entitlement program as the actual

administration of the program will be done by officials of the Albuquerque

Public Schools (APS) system. Nonetheless, the planning and negotiation

responsibilities have been done by the prime sponsor. Also, the availability

of the entitlement program to the city means that those eligible youth in

the entitlement area will be served exclusively by the entitlement program.

This means that al., of the funds available from the other portions of YEDPA

can be reserved for the youth outside the central city area that is served

by the entitlement. Obviously, the receipt of the entitlement grant significantly affects the scale and the composition of the youth employment

effort.

Unfortunately, the announcement of the award (which itself was

delayed several weeks) only led to further postponements before the

entitlement program actually began operation. It had been hoped (and

planned) that the entitlement would begin when the spring semester began

which was January 19. This was important since the key feature of the

entitlement is the receipt of academic credit for the work experience

component.

The prime sponsor hadat first believed it was an advantage to

deal directly with the private consulting crganer, the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation of New York City (MDRC), instead of the

regular DOL chain of authority. But this illusion was soon shattered. As

one official claimed: "It tragic that private industry turns out to be

* Subpart 1 of YEDPA is not included for specific review as a part of this

study. It 3s mentioned only to the degree that it impinges on the operation

of Subparts 2 and 3 of YEDPA which are the specified subject matter.
3

more inefficient than the federal government but that has certainly been

our experience." As of late March, 1978 the budget had been reworked and

resubmitted four times. Under the initial grant, Albuquerque was to

receive $1.25 million; MDRC cut the amount to $900 thousand; and, after

prolonged negotiations the final amount agreed to was $1.147 million. As

of the date that the program began, the prime sponsor has still not received

a fiscal manual or a participant manual.

Supposedly, one of the key features of the entitlement program was

to be the impact of a sudden increase in the employment of youth in the

target area. But due to the delays, it was necessary to phase-in the hiring

which minimized the immediate thrust of the program. The program was

intended to serve 442 youth who attend Albuquerque High School in mid-town

Albuquerque. It began March 21 (i.e., two full months late) in midsemester for 250 youth; by April 8, there were 300 youth participating and

by the end of April it was at its full complement. There was serious doubt

when the program finally began as to whether academic credit would be

available since the class sessions required for credit had already been

missed. On March 17, the APS agreed to give one-half credit for those who

were in the initially hired group but academic credit will not be available

for the remainder. One and one-half credits will be available for those who

participate in the full summer program. It is hoped that the one-half

credit will still be sufficient incentive for youth to participate and for

some to graduate. Local manpower officials feel that "for many youth the

credits are more important than the money."

It is believed that the delayed start as well as the "phased-in"

participation schedule has defeated the whole purpose of the research

demonstration aspect of the entitlement. felt that MDRC people have

no understanding at all of the local pressures that affect a prime sponsor.

MDRC has requested hypotheses be developed without an understanding that

these require time to develop. School officials must be contacted and

involved. Explanations must be prepared. And, most importantly, the local

political process must be understlod which means that "all bases must be

touched before we can do anythin7," It is felt that MDRC "should know

this" and that the time contraS.nt_ they imposed were simply too short to

allow careful design of the .;cells to be sought and of hypotheses to be tested.

Likewise, the entitlement delays also caused in the

community. Many youth and their parents could not understand why the program, which has been so widely publicized, was not operative. Also, the

public agencies that had been lined-up to provide the work sites were also

upset when, after the haste to have them commit themselves, nothing

happened. And, of course, the school officials were also upset because of

the necessity to re-schedule many students. It was important to have done

all of this prior to the beginning of the semester. As it turned out, the

program began in the middle of the semester which caused not only scheduling

problems for students but also readjustments in the assignment of teachers

necessary to teach the classroom component required for the award of the

academic credit.
4

Even more frueereting and potentially embarrasing was the fact that

when the first pay period ended, the prime sponsor had still not received

the money to meet the payroll of the entitlement youth. A crisis was

averted when, "on the basis of a handshake," the school district agreed to

meet the payroll on the expectation that it will be reimbursed later.

As fee the other portions of YEDPA, they too were all delayed. All

of the Youth Community Conservation Improvement Projects (YCCIP) funds were

awarded to a single community based organization. Known as Youth Development,

Inc. (YDI), it enrolled its first youth on March 1, 1978 (as opposed to

mid-January whey: planned). As the YCCIP program in essentially a work program, there were rew start-up problems. Over 200 applications were received

for the 53 positions. Of these 13 are out-of-school-youth who are employed

full-time and they serve as site coordinators who supervise the part-time

employment of t'ee 40 other in-school youth. Only 8 of the original participants are women. Of these, 4 quit complaining that the "work was too

hard." In total there were 8 dropouts in the first month with women

accounting for SO percent of these. The work involves repairing homes for

economically disadvantaged senior citizens and clean-up, maintenance and

repair in the city's parks system.

With respect to the Youth Employment and Training Program (YETP),

start-up delays were also experienced. The mandated participation of local

education agencies was no issue in Albuquerque since APS is the only school

system in the city and the county. The APS program involved the creation

of a single coonerative education program with the local hospitality

industry. The program eegan February 13 (instead of January 19) with a

phased-in enrollment :.het reached its maximum of 50 within two weeks. The

delays ware due to the f.-ct that it is required that all teaching openings

must be advertised for 10 days and at least 5 people must be interviewed

and also there wee some problem finding the 50 students who were from

economically disadvantaged homes who were interested in participating and

who were enrolled in ten different schools. Only those in the eleventh

grade were eligible to participate since APS felt this is the dropout

grade for many youth and also it was hoped that participants this year would

see the advantage of enrolling in other vocational education classes in

their senior year. The reception to the youth has been very positive by

thefive private employers (each employing 10 youth). In several instances,

the employers have hired the youth on a voluntary basis to work additional

hours at the employer's expanse on weekends. By the end of March, only one

youth had drooped out and he was terminated for the theft of several blank

checks. In this case, the employer felt that this one bad experience did

not in anyway reduce his enthusiasm for the work of the others. Aside from

the fact that the youth are given career exploration opportunities (i.e.,

they are rotated every few weeks through the different occupations that

comprise the hospitality industry), the students attend a class session

every week to discuss work habits and appearance improeement as well as

to develop self-confidence. The instructor and counselor responsible for

the program report "a marked improvement" in the attitudes of the youth.
5

Also there have been improvements in the school attendance records of the

participants which is, in part, attributed to the strict enforcement of

the rule that if an enrollee does not go to all classes that day, the

enrollee may not go to work that same day. School attendance is stressed

because the program is seen to be a form of work study. The participants are

also being exposed to the fact that tourism is a muldi-dimensional industry.

They are taught about the role of travel agents; they are taken on weekends

to various sightseeing attractions in the area; and they have been exposed

to a number of modes of transportation (e.g., a visit to the airport which

included a tour inside of an airplane). Each participant receives one

credit during the school ye*L plus an additional one and one-half credits

during the summer when they will work full time. The hospitality industry

sees the program as being "very cost .effective" and it has agreed to provide

the summer employment for all the participants even if any one of the

specific employers cannot hire all 10 youth on a full-time basis. Stress is

given to the youth that they are employees of the hotels and motels. It

is not stressed that they are CETA participants.

Another YETP program is an internship with the City of Albuquerque

for post-secondary high school youth. This program is an extention of a

program that has been available in the past only for full time work in the

summer. It involves 44 students who are enrolled in community college or

university classes and who are employed part-time in city job related to

their studies. This program began February 1, 1978 with phased-in participation throughout that month. By March 1, 1978 it reached its participant

goal.

The balance of the YETP activities in Albuquerque are programs run

by the prime sponsor itself. A key feature of these programs was the

creation of a special youth office which will serve all youth, 14 to 21

years of age, in a one-stop operation. The youth office opened March 6,

1978. In-school youth from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are

referred to APS for participation in its on-going CETA Title I in-school

program for youth. For non-economically disadvantaged youth, there is a

"dial-a-teen" program for part-time casual type jobs. pial -a -teen is also

run by APS although it is a funded activity of the City of Albuquerque.

It is anticipated that in the near future that the youth office will itself

be able to take job requests for youth and to place them directly.

For those out-of-school youth between 16 and 17 years of age, an

effort is made to encourage them to return to school or to enroll in G.E.D.

classes. If these efforts are to no avail, the youth are tested and

counseled to see if they can be referred directly to any available job or

to place them in one of the subsidized YETP cervices. For those meeting

the income eligibility criteria and who are out-of-school youth, 16 to 17

years of age, 45 training slots with local private training schools have

been funded under YETP. For those youth between 18-21 years of age, 90

full time on-the-job training slots have been funded under YETP. The youth

office is responsible for the development of the OJT job sites. It has
6

established the policy of developing verbal contact with employers in

order to learn what they want but not to write formal contracts until

suitable youth have been found. In this way problems in the past of lags

between the writing of contracts and the actual placement of a person on

the job can be avoided. Having learned the employer's expectations, three

youth who seem to quality will be referred to each employer. He will

choose the one best suited for his enterprise. Employers are encouraged to

contact the youth office if problems develop in order that a counselor can

intervene to prevent a firing.

Each youth who visits the office is assigned to a single counselor.

This counselor is responsible for the youth for all future inquiries and

assistance. It is intended that the youth office be totally comprehenzive

in its youth work. There is to be no delegation of duties. In this way it

is hoped that rivalries that occur when various community-based organizations (CBO's) are involved in the delivery of services can be avoided.

Also, it is believed that the single office can be better held accountable

for what does or does not happen. As the director stated, "if it doesn't

work, there is no one else to blame but ourselves."

One other planned project that involves an internship with private

industry remained in abeyance as of late March. The Youth Advisory Committee

had proposed such an activity but the prime sponsor concluded that the

activity would not be permissable under existing regulation. A re-allocation

of the $60,000 provided for this activity has not yet occurred.

B. The Coastal Bend Manpower Consortium, Texas

The most sever:: delays in implementation of YEDPA in the localities

under review occurred with the Coastal Bend Consortium. The Consortium

embraces not only the City of Corpus Christi but also 12 mostly rural

counties in South Texas. A mix up occurred between the prime sponsor and

the regional DOL office over the original contract. The prime sponsor

submitted the proposals it received, believing this is what was requested

but aware that there proposals were not in final form. DOL believed the

proposals were final and raised many objections--especially with those pertaining to YCCIP. As a consequence, partial funding was made available on a provisional basis that the DOL questions be satisfactorily answered. It

took another month (i.e., all of February) before the responses could be

completed. This was due to th, fact that February was also during the

period in which DOL put forth maximum pressure to build up public service

employment (i.e., Title VI) enrollments and, simultaneously, the prime

sponsor was initiating a Skill Training Improvement Program (STIP). it

took another three weeks before the regional DOL approved the responses and

full funding was authorized. Thus, in effect most of YEDPA activities did

not begin until late March with most enrollments not beginhing until midApril.
7

With respect to YCCIP, three of the rural work programs were fully

operational by early April. The fourth program with the City of Three

Rivers began April 20. The delays have created much consternation but the

fact that the program termination dates for these particular projects have

been extended will mean that all of the youth will be able to participate for

the full (bnrollment period. There was some initial confusion over whether

or not in-school youth could be enrolled in YCCIP. The prime sponsor felt

that the rules and regulations implied that they could but it was unclear to

them whether in-school youth could also be considered as being unemployed.

As all of the YCCIP projects are in rural communities, it was necessary

for in-school youth to be included to reach the specified enrollment levels.

With regard to YETP, the bulk of the program effort was awarded to

the Corpus Christi Independent School District (CCISD) for service to the

entire consortium area. It began enrollments on March 1, 1978 (53 days

later than originally planned) in its multiple program effort. As one school

official stated, "there was nothing we could do about the delays but wait"

until approval was finally received. He added that the delays "messed up

the time schedules" of the programs. Several rural programs had to be

dropped because the delays meant that academic credit was lost for planned

Experienced Based Career Education program. As a result, two teachers had

to be dropped.

The CCISD effort is designed to' integrate its YETP effort into

its existing PATH program that seeks to identify and to serve marginal school

attendees and achievers. PATH is an acronym for the words prevention of

school dropouts; attraction of drop-outs back to school settings; transition

of out-of-school youngsters to jobs or to training; and helping services

that include an array of supportive assistance. It is the objective of

PATH to lead participants to some specified outcome. Recognizing that the

youth are in a transition stage, the goals may be to lead participants to

further education, or to skill training, or to direct job placement. Job

placement itself, however, is not overly emphasized relative.to the other

program objectives. As of mid-April, 1978, there were 236 youth enrolled

in its YETP programs.

In the rural areas, it is necessary for CCISD to tailor PATH to

the strengths of the local school districts. Most of these districts are

small and they are unable to offer a variety of programs available to

larger urban districts. Hence, CCISD concentrates its efforts on the

existing vocational education, G.E.D., or cooperative education programs.

CCISD notes that in the rural areas there is much more interest in work

experience programs than in training or education endeavors since the most

chronic local problem is the shortage of jobs.

In conjunction with CCISD's efforts, LULAC (League of Latin

American Citizens) Educational Service Center, a community based organization, has a YETP contract to provide career education and self-awareness

counseling to many of the youths enrolled in YETP. The participating
a

enrollees in the CCISD program are given released, work time to attend these

special classes. The classes vary between 2 to 8 hours in total per each

person. A mobile van is used to take the staff and materials into the

rural areas to be sure that they too obtain th7 e services. In the first

month, 73 percent (or 176 persons) of the YETP participants received such

supporti'e services.

The remaining YETP project is an on-the-job training program with

private industry that is sponsored by the American G.I. Forum which is a community based organization. The program is part of the organization

veterans outreach effort. It will provide full-time OJT positions. A

provision to provide part-time OJT positions was dropped. The program is

expected to serve only youth above age 18 as it has-been found from past

experience that most private employers are not interested in par..:-time

workers or in youth under 18 for OJT positions. There do seem to be more

problems involved as the program, as of late April, had not yet begun and

the sponsor had already let it be known that it did not intend to seek

summer funding. Apparently, some of the problems derive from a belief that

"the OJT policy of DOL is unclear about how and what to do." The role of

unions, of the Davis-Bacon Act and of the Fair Labor Standards Act with

respect to OJT have raised local questions that have yet to be resolved.

In general, however, the program sponsors are enthusiastic about

YETP now that its long delayed launching has occurred. The availability of

year-round work experience opportunities as well as the availability of

other services that were only possible during the summer b-fore seem to be

the strongest attraction.

C. El Paso and El Paso County, Texas

A multitude of ccmplicated problems also delayed the beginning of

YEDCA activities in El Paso. With respect to YCCIP, three proposals were

originally approved by the Manpower Services Council of the prime sponsor.

Two of these were recommended over the negative recommendation of the staff

of the prime sponsor. On review by the regional DOL, the two proposals (one

by the Yucca Boy Scout Council and one by the Rio Grande Girl Scouts) were

not.approved. Subsequently, the Boy Scouts did not re-apply. The Girl

Scout proposal was revised and was approved. It is a small grant of

$15,000 for employment of 12 youth for seven weeks in a soil and energy

conservation project at one of choir permanent campsites. It will not

begin however until early summer 1978. The funds that remained after the

Boy Scouts withdrew was added to the budget of the El Paso Independent

School District (EPISD) which was the third sponsor of a YCCIP project.

EPISD began its YCCIP program February 22, 1978. It had 32 youth

in the program as of mid-March 1978. Wen school is out for the summer, it

is expected to build enrollments up to 121 participants. Academic credit

is available for all YCCIP participants starting with the spring quarter.

The YCCIP participants are all in-school youth and they usually work at

11 22
9

schools in their neighborhoods on conservation and beautification projects.

They attend two hours of special classes a week that involve career exploration and self-awareness topics. The students are not paid for the classroom

time. As of mid-March, there had been three dropouts.

As for YETP, it encountered a host of start-up problems. In the

initial review of YETP by the Manpower Services Council to the prime sponsor,

four proposals were approved which accounted for only 63 percent of the

available funds. All proposals from CEO's were rejected for poor quality.

When the grant package was submitted, however, four labor unions filed

prote.,ts with the regional DOL office. A special meeting was arranged in

mid-January 1978 between all parties involved. At this meeting, according

to one local manpower official, "it was obvious that the unions were concerned about issues that had nothing particular to do with YEDFA, but had

much to do about government sponsored training programs, wage rates, and

job re- structuring in general." As a result of this meeting, the staff of

the prime sponsor decided that no YETP training should occur in any occupational area that in any way involves construction. The Youth Council and

the Manpower Services! Council concurred. The local unions were contacted

about this decision but gave no response. Likewise, regional DOL was

notified and a request was made for DOL to acknowledge in writing that it

had no objection to the agreement. No response letter was received.

For the unallocated portion of YETP, a second round of requests

for proposals were sent out. The proposals were due back in mid-January

and the whole review process had to begin again. Eight applications were

received; five were approved. The approved projects were:

1. A new proposal by the Human Serviceei Section of the Depart'ient of

Human Development of the City of El Paso (a separate administrative

unit of the same department that is the prime sponsor) was for an

in-school and out-of-school work experienced program for 47 youth

in a variety of city agencies. It commenced on March 1, 1978.

2. A re-submitted proposal by Project Bravo, the local community

action agency, called for 16 positions to be provided to in-school

youth. The work experience is tied to on-going activities of the

agency. It began March 13, 1978.

3. A new proposal from El Paso Community College involves the creation

of two vocational science classes (one in refrigeration repair and

one in secretarial sciences). A total of 40 students will be

involved. Academic credit will be provided and the students will

receive allowances of $2.65 an hour while in class. Once admitted

to the classes, they will receive special counseling and, upon

completion, they will receive direct job placement assistance. The

classes began in early April 1978.
4. A re-submitted proposal by the Trinity Coalition, a local community

based organization from the public housing projects section of the

south side of the city, involves job creation and work experiences

for 15 youths who are out-of-school. They will work in recreation

and day care positions. It began February 27, 1978.

5. A re-submitted proposal by El Paso SER, a local affiliate of the

national community-based organization for serving the Spanish

speaking, calls for the creation of a work experience program for

13 out-of-school youth with emphasis given to jobs at the county

hospital. It began February 21, 1978.

In addition to the delays caused by the necessity of a second

round of proposals, delays were also experienced because of simultaneous

pressures from COL in January and February to give priority to public

service employment opportunities for adults. It was reported that "extensive

time of both the staff and the planning council were shifted aw,../ Z.zom youth

during this period." The result was that "the implementation of youth programs--especially the contracting aspects--was adversely affected."

As for the four YETP programs that were approved in the initial

plan in December 1978, the largest grant was to the El ?aso Independent

Schoo' District (EP/SD). As it also is a sponsor of the YCCIP program, the

two have followed the same implementation schedule. Both programs are

exclusively for in-school youth (in some cases out-of-school youth who

indicate a desire to return to school are also eligible). Enrollees in

both programs attend the same career exploration and self-awareness classes

together. Both receive the same academic credit for successful completion.

The only apparent difference ia the work sites. YCCIP .participants wc.:7k

in conservation and beautification projects in public school Zacilizi,,s in

their neighborhoods; YETP participants work in a variety of work sites

throughout the city and in a wide variety of occupations. The informal

rule that if a student does not attend school on a given day that he cannot

work that same day is strictly enforced. Employers were very complimentary

about the work of YETP participants and several officials indicated hopes

that some participants will be asked to work permanently with the public

agencies when they complete their schooling. The YETP program began March 1,

1978 and it had 101 participants by the middle of the month. There were

four dropouts during this initial period of operation.

The Ysleta Independent School, District also is operating a YETP

program for 50 in-school youth who serve as teacher aids. It too began in

March 1978.

There are two other programs in El Paso funded under YETP that

involve supportive services and job opportunities. One is a project run by

the El Paso Central YMCA ac a drop-out reduction effort for in-school

youth. It began in mid-March and anticipates involving 108 youth when at

full strength. Youth are paid for the hours they spend attending special
13.

exploration classes for two nights a week. There are some plans to extend

the scope of the program to involve both work experience and OJT. The

other program is a contract with the El Paso YWCA to serve 250 women in

both a counseling and work experience capacity. The jobs will all be within

the YWCA organization itself. The women need not be only persona who meet

the income eligibility criterion of CETA to receive services. RA only

those women who do meet this standard will be eligible to fill the work

experience slots. This program also began in mid-March.

D. Summary of Activity Levels

Having reviewed the interim developments in each prime sponsor

area, Table 1 presents an overall summary of program activity for both

YCCIP and YETP for each prime sponsor. No direct comparison can be made of

the respective prime sponsors since each represents a different combination

of programs and sponsors. The table does, however, indicate the magnitude

of the implementation delays. In almost every instance, the actual enrollments lagged considerably behind the planned levels. In one instance, the

YCCIP projects did not begin at all during the first quarter of 1978.

1
19

Table 1: Actual and Planned Program Enrollments

in YCCIP and YETP Projects for the Implementation

Period (January 1-March 31, 1978) in Albuquerque, N.M.,

the Coastal Bend Consortium, Tx., and E]. Paso, Tx.

Prime Sponsor

Program

Albuquerque

Bernalillo

Actual

Cty, NM

Planned

Coastal

Consortium,

Actual

Bend

Tx.

Planned

El Paso

El Paso Cty, Tx.

Actual Planned

YICCP 54 55 0 36 35 106

Percent of

Planned 98% 0% 13%

YETP 91 208 199 460 380 637

Percent of

Planned 44% 43% 60%

Source: Quarterly Reports by the Respective Prime Sponsors to the U.S.

Department of Labor

III. Specific Issues

A. Knowledge Development

In all three areas, interest was expressed about what was happening to the participants in the program and what lessons could be learned

from the YEDPA experience. But all were frank to admit that little

attention has been given to the subject in any specific sense. The short

planning period followed by "a frantic effort" to implement the specific

projects plus the pressure to give highest priority to public service

employment for adults during this same time interval simply did not permit

much attention to the topic. One official candidly said that "it has been

impossible to be concerned about knowledge development in any serious way."

Another warned that to learn anything requires "a keen understanding and

extensive interpretation of the numbers given the complexity of the legislation and the variation in target groups between projects."

The only special research project in the three areas is one

creat.ed by the Coastal Bend Consortium. It involves a small experimental

1 -a.
is

group set up under its YETP grant to the CCISD. Taking advantage of the

option to admit some persons who are from families whose income is above

the 85% Lower Living Standard standard, they have mixed a class of disadvantaged youngsters with youngsters who are above the 85% standard. It

is a Coordinated Vocational Academic Education class in which the class

progress and the work performance of the two separate groups will be monitored.

B. Job Quality and Supervision

It is difficult to generalize over such a wide variety of undertakings about such vital issues as job quality and the adequacy of supervision. Impressions based upon a number of on-site visits and interviews

with some participants and supervisors do suggest several trends.

First, the quality of job being provided to YET? participants are

much better than those generally available to YCCIP enrollees. The YCCIP

jobs tend to be out-of-doors work and tend to be similar in content in all

three prime sponsor areas. Essentially, the work is clean-up and maintenance

tasks. Thus, if the test is whether work is being done that would not

likely be done in the absence of YCCIP, then YCCIP is a success. If skill

transferability is the test, it is not. In either case, work is being

done, work habits are being learned, and income is being provided to youth

who are almost exclusively from seriously economically disadvantaged backgrounds. The work is unskilled and as such the quality of the jobs is

generally low. YETP participants, on the other hand, seem to be exposed

to a much wider variety of jobs. Although the jobs also seem to be largely

unskilled, the settings in which they work and the supportive services

which they receive do seem to offer more exposure to opportunities to see how one could benefit from the job they have as a method to move up the job

ladder. YETP participants are also more likely to be in jobs that are

similar to those of regular employees.

Secondly, the degree of supervision is more likely to be by adults

in YETP than in YCCIP. In some instances YCCIP projects supervisors are

other YCCIP youth. In YETP jobs, the supervisors are usually the same

people who are in charge of all employees.

Thirdly, as inferred above, YETP participants are usually in

regular jobs that mix them with regular employees. YCCIP participants are

usually working in separate projects that are especially created for them.

Fourth, academic credit is being awarded in all three localities

for participants in various YETP programs in which a local education agency

is involved. Only in El Paso is such an opportunity available to YCCIP

enrollees. In El Paso, the advent of YEDPA is directly credited for the

ability of the school system to offer acAdAmic credit for work experience

as earlier efforts to secure such approval had not bean successful.
14

Fifth, it does seem that in both YETP and YCCIP that the emphasis

is placed on the provision of services as opposed to the creation of tangible

output. Undoubtedly barriers to work in construction projects has

affected the job mix. By concentrating on intangible services, YEDPA is

being denied the ability to build long run monuments (such as those available to the projects of the New Deal era) that future generations will be

able to point back to with pride. There is much interest in the local

level in doing tangible work but the fear of union opposition as well as

the lack of adequate parallel funds for capital materials and tools has

largely precluded this option.

C. Youth Participation

In none of the localities has youth participation in YEDPA been

significant. All have gone through the prescribed motions, but it simply

has not worked. The youth councils are dominated by adults who usually

also serve on the planning councils for the prime sponsors. The adults tend

to be representatives of special interest groups--both private and public.

Most of the adults have built up extensive expertise over the years about

manpower programs. The youth usually are intimidated by the adults. In

several instances, youth members have not attended meetings. In most

instances, when present they do not actively participate. It is quite

uncertain as to whom they are representing when they express their views.

It is generally felt that the youth participation in the operation of YEDPA

is largely "window dressing." As one official stated, "it sounds good but

it doesn't work." Not much attention has been given to alternative formulations and it is apparent that some of the criticisms are equally applicable

to the membership of the regular planning councils. In one city it was

suggested that it was the fact that, in reality, there is no planning

mission for the planning councils that makes them all ineffective. As he

put it:

DOL does not plan. That is the heart of the problem. It does

zero planning but it expects us to plan. They rush everything which

means that all we can do is implement programs. We are still getting

issuances on YEDPA. You cannot plan at the local level without all

of the rules and regulations being known in advance. We simply cannot

tell city officials that this is what we think we want to do now but

we will probably have to change it all later when the precise rules

and regulations are known. Because DOL doesn't plan, we can't. It's

that simple.

There are suggestions that the youth advisory committee should be

made up entirely of youth and that the regular planning councils be made up

entirely of youth and that the regular planning councils be made up only of

political officials. If necessary technical committees could be created to

advise on certain special issues but it is felt that the present composition
1.S of the planning councils is tilted too much toward "turf ism" and not enough

toward the common good.

D. Targeting

`Under YEDPA, participation in YCCIP and YETP is not specifically

targeted for the economically disadvantaged (i.e., those youth from families

Whose income is 70 percent or less of the lower living standard set up the

by the Bureau of Labor Statistics). In addition, there are persons from

families in the 70-85 percent range of the BLS lower living standard and

those from families whose income is above the 85 percent standard. The

prime sponsors were asked, however, to give "preference" to the economically

disadvantaged. As can be seen from Table 2, all of the prime sponsors have

clearly given this preference.

All of the prime sponsors report that they are carefully checking

the actual eligibility of applicants but the matter not as simple as it

sounds. The easiest situation occurs when the youth Is from a family that

is also receiving public welfare assistance. In other cases, checks are

.wade to verify the actual income of the parents if the youth is still living

at home. But there is much uncertainty as to what to do about the youth who

lives alone and, in some instances, the youth who is a family head. It is

difficult to verify their actual income, especially if they are receiving

help from their parents but are not claimed as a dependant by their parents.

Also, the Coastal Bend Manpower Consortium has had a more complicated problem. Namely, it encompases not only the urban area of the City of

Corpus Christi but also twelve rural counties. Both the 85 percent of low

living standard (i.e., the BLS Standard) andethe economically disadvantaged

standard (i.e., of standard used by the Office of Management and Budveting).

establish figures that increase with the size of the family. But the BLS

standard also varies on the basis of metropolitan and non-metropolitan

residence whereas the OMB budget does not. Hence, the OMB budget in some

circumstances is higher than the BLS standard for small families but lower

than the BLS standard for bigger families. As a result "it is very difficult

to juggle all of these variables--especially out in the field." These multiplecriteria have tended to generate considerable confusion.

It is clear that the majority of the youth participating are from

minority groups as nationally defined although in each of these communities

the minority population is either the majority population or very close to

it. Also, the majority of the participants are in-school at the high school

level. Actually the number of in-school youth is higher than indicated in

the official reporting system since youth who are older than 18 who are attending community colleges are not classified as being in-school. There

is a natural bias in the YETP figures to steer toward more participation by

in-school youth and that is, of course, the fact that the school systems are

legislatively involved. By definition, their interest is toward servicing

1 I 0
16

Table 2. Participant Characteristics in YCCIP and YETP

Projects During the Implementation Quarter

(January 1, 1978-March 31, 1978) of

YEDPA in Albuquerque, N.M., the

Coastal Bend Consortium, Tx.,

and El Paso, Tx.

Participant

Characteristic

Sex:

Albuquerque

Bernalillo Cty.,

N.M.

YCCIP YETP

Coastal Bend

Consortium, Tx.

YCCIP YETP

:7,1 Paso

El Paso Cty., Tx.

=CV? YET:: Male 42 39 -- 91 35 166

Female 12 52 MI .=. 108 0 214

Age:

14-15 4 1 -- 0 2 11

16-17 32 47 -- 117 26 227

18-19 18 20 -- 59 6 119

20-21 0 22 -- 23 1 23

over 21 0 1 -- 0 0 0

Family Income:

Economically

Disadvantaged 54 88 177 35 295

85% of Less than

Lower Living

Standard 0 0 15 0 85

Ethnic Group:

White 47 80 -- 158 34 371

(Spanish

American) (43) (49) -- (141) (34) 350

Black 4 7 -- 40 1 8

Other 3 4 -- 1 0 1

Labor Force

Status:

Underemployed 0 0 -- 1 0 3

Unemployed 3 0 -- 61 0 188

Other 51 91 -- 137 35 169

1'0
Participant

Characteristic

14.

17

Table 2 (Continued)

Albuquerque Coastal Bend El Paso

Bernalillo Cty., Consortium, Tx. El Paso Cty., Tx.

N.M.

YCCIP YETP YCCIP YETP YCCIP YETP

Education

H.S. Student 38 48 100 34 315

H.S. Dropout 7 1 85 0 21

H.S. Completed

Not in

School 8 0 -- 12 1 28

Post H.S.

Student 1 42 -- 2 0 16

Total 54 91 0 19 35 380

Source: Quarterly Roports of Respective Prime Sponsors to U.S. Department

of Labor,. March 31, 1978

in-school youth. At the Lame time, all groups are sensitive to the proposition that to provide much in the way of opportunity for out-of-school

youth (below age 18) might only serve to entice students to quit school.

Desivning adequate? programs for out -of- school youth below age 18, therefore,

largely remains a dilemma.

It is no surprise, therefore, that the figures in Table 2 describing

labor force participation show a rather low number of previously unemployed

youth as program participants. The presence of YEDPA, therefore, seems to

suggest that its impact will be to increase employment levels of youth but

not to have much effect on youth unemployment. As most participants are

in-school youth, many of these people are attracted to the program from the

rank* of those who have not been in the labor force.

E. Substitution

As none of the YEDPA programs in any of the three localities were

operational for the full first quarter of 1978, it is not possible to make

any observations about whether substitution of YEDPA for already existing

youth opportunities occurred. Given the fact, however, that all of the

sponsors felt youth were being squeezed out of CETA prior to YEDPA, it

is hard to imagine that there could have been much opportunity for youth

substitution.

In Albuquerque, the coming of the entitlement program as well as

YCCIP and YETP and its already functioning CETA Title I in-school program
18

means that youth are now going to be the majority of participants (excluding public service employment) who are participating in the city's

manpower program. This represents an entirely new and significant priority

role in this city.

All three prime sponsors are cognizant of the fact substitution is

an important political and academic question. But, from an economic perspective,Jeach prime sponsor claims that the universe of need is so great

in each of their communities that they see little reason why it should be

an issue. They claim they want to serve youth and that YEDPA affords

them the opportunity to do so. As they know that their previous level

of youth services is being watched, it is doubtful that any of them will

allow those previous levels to fall. YEDPA should result in a net gain

in employment of youth. The real question, as discussed earlier, is whether

the increased youth employment will in the process actually lessen youth unemployment..

F. Institutional Change

The most important institutional changes appear to be occuring

with the local educational agencies (LEA's). The least appear to be with

private industry and unions.

As indicated earlier, academic credit is available in all three

localities for those endeavors involving LEA's. In Albuquerque, such programs already existed. The only significant change was that the specific

program in the hospitality industry was targeted solely at economically

disadvantaged youth. In El Paso, YEDPA clearly was instrumental in overcoming previous opposition to such programs both at the local and state

level. In the Coastal Bend, academic credit programs had been a:. integral

part of the existing program before YEDPA. The development of similar

programs in some of, the rural independent school districts, included in the

consortium's jurisdiction was made possible by YEDPA. Unfortunately,

the implementation of some of these new programs had to be postponed due

to the start-up delays.

It is clear that YEDPA planning cycles are not compatible with

those of local schools. During this initial year, the schools had to

adjust to the YEDPA requirements. As a result there was much unneeded illwill generated and there were some delays that could not be avoided. The

need to appreciate the operational realities of local political institutions

must be recognized in national manpower legislation. School districts are

required to have all policy actions approved by local boards of education.

Likewise, in some areas, the local teacher organizations have contractual

rights concerning staffing assignments and opportunities. These steps

cannot be abridged as events in Albuquerque showed. The haste to implement

YEDPA could not and did not result in any youth being employed any sooner

than would have happened if more recognition had been given initially

to the local operational constraints.
19

The LEA's in Albuquerque and El Paso have restricted their activities to serving in-school youth. In the Coastal Bend program, there

are several work experience programs for out-of-school youth as well but

they were largely in place before YEDPA. Most of these programs are for

post-secondary level youth but the linkages with junior colleges for college

exploration studies do represent innovative approaches.

As for the private sector, the barriers appear to be too large

to the establishment of institutional change. The prevailing requirements

of many manpower programs simply impose too many restrictions on private

employers relative to their alternative sources of employees. Also, it

is reported that many local employers have reservations about hiring youth.

Some of these resrevations pertain to insurance and child labor laws but

other concern attitudes based on past experiences. In both Albuquerque

and the Coastal Bend programs, there is an OJT component of YEDPA but in

neither had they become operational as of April 1978.

As for unions, it can be said tne YEDPA has had no institutional

effects except adding to already latent apprehensions by union people

about manpower training programs. Even though the union movement in all

three areas is very weak, the prime sponsors have guided their YEDPA

activities away from any possible conflicts. In El Paso, where a dispute

did erupt, YEDPA activities were quickly re-directed away from any possible

encounter. In none of these communities are public employees unionized so that this possible conflict area is not any issue to date.

G. Choosing Delivery Agents

All three prime sponsor initially expressed strong opx:L;ition to

the expressed emphasis given by YEDPA for the involvement of

based organizations (CBO's;. Yet, as YEDPA has unraveled it is

clear that CBO's are involved in all three localities. It should be noted,

however, that in all three localities some CBO's were already involved in

the delivery of manpower services prior to YEDPA. But in none of these

cases were CBO's involved in any particular youth services. Under YEDPA,

some CBO's are now involved in youth programs in each community. In

Albuquerque, a CEO administers the entire YCCIP program. of the three

areas, this is the largest single CBO project. But in Albuquerque, there

are no CBO's involved in any YETP programs nor were any CBO proposals

requested. In El Paso and the Coastal Bend area there is only minor involvement of CBO's in YCCIP but there is more participation in YETP. In

the Coastal Bend area, the LULAC Educational Services program provides

services to the LEA's program. The OJT program sponsored by the American

G.I. Forum however, appears to be floundering. In El Paso, the YETP

program run by CBO's began so late due to the aforementioned delays that

it is not yet possible to make any clear-cut observations as to their role.
20

H. Coordination of Youth Services

The requirements for the preparation of youth service inventories

was largely a waste of time. There is no evidence that they played any

role whatsoever in the planning or implementation of YEDPA. The time

constraints imposed on the program simply did not allow time for such

input. Moreover, even when completed, the material is so broad and general

that it really does not tell very much that would be useful to address

specific youth employment needs. They are more of an indication of

community services than anything else.

The most novel new venture is the youth office established in

Albuquerque. As discussed at length in Part II, it is a one-stop

office for the delivery of all youth services. It is to be totally comprehensive with no delegation of duties to any other office in t'ae city. It

will be staffed by 3 counselors, 2 job developers, and one referral

specialist. Each youth will be assigned a counselor who will be the

same person for all subsequent visits. It is the counselor's job

to handle all of the needs of each youth. Thus, the objective of the youth

office is to centralize all youth activities in one office while, at the

same time personalizing the contact of each youth with the office. The

youth office is physically separate from all other manpower agencies in

the city in a convenient downtown location.

In most instances, the YCCIP and YETP projects in each city are

designed to continue into the summer. In the Coastal Bend program, the

original intension of the YETP project administered by CCISD was to end

June 1, 1978, and then to transition all of the enrollees into the

regular CETA Title III Summer Youth Program. 331, spending all of its

YETP money before June 1, it was planned that total enrollment ia YETI,

would have been higher than if the funds were spread out through the

summer months. The fact that the program was delayed now means that YETP

will be extended for the participants. Still there are plans to transition into the summer youth program once the YETP funds are used up. This

does raise some fears since the eligibility standards for YETP are higher

(with respect to family income) than are those for the regular summer

youth program. The extent of this possible problem is unknown at this time

but the school system officials are very much aware of it.

I. Future Options

All three prime sponsors have been too deeply involved in their

implementation activities to give much attention to the long run. All

acknowledge that in the past there has been a definite tendency to squeeze

youth out of CETA activities. Accordingly, they.have welcomed the attention

that YEDPA gives to youth needs. They do not like the complexity of the

legislation and would prefer a mandate to serve youth but one that would

permit more flexibility in the design of the particular format.
21

IV. Concluding Observations

The fact that so little time was allowed for planning YEDA in

the Fall of 1977 haunted efforts to implement YEDPA during the Winter of

1978. It is only by early Spring that YEDPA can be said to be operational in

any meaningful sense. Delays were the rule in the launching of the YEDPA

projects in all three prime sponsor areas. There were no exceptions to

the rule. The lack of sufficiert planning time was perhaps the most

important explanation for the delays. But another key factor pertained to

the higher priority assigned by DOL to adult programs during the start-up

months. The local prime sponsors were given an offer they could not

refuse: fill up your public service employment slots immediately or lose

them. The primes got the message and acted accordingly. In Albuquerque,

it is also clear that the delays and confusions associated with the

ability of MDRC to begin the entitlement program have adversely affected

YETP and YCCIP by diverting staff time.

Although the question of substitUtion seems to be the major concern

of politicians (and there is no way to address these concerns at this date

due to the delays in program implementation), there is emerging a more

serious issue for economists. Namely, the thrust of YEDPA is clearly toward

in-school youth of high school age. Most of these people benefit from the

presence of the program but are they really the group for whom YEDPA

was designed? It would seem at this early stage that the impact of YEDPA

is likely to be more associated with increasing youth employment but not

reducing youth unemployment. Most participants seem to be coming from the

"not in the labor force" category as opposed to being "unemployed" arse.

Lastly, it does seem unfortunate that YEDPA's course is being

steered away from the building of tangible profits. Its participants are

largely working in service occupations. YEDPA is being denied the opportunity to build any lasting monuments for its participants to look back

to with pride or for future generations to be able to acknowledge as being

accomplishments. The barriers to YEDPA involvement in labor intensive

construction projects should be examined more closely.

Yet despite numerous obstacles, YEDPA is "off-the-ground." It

is strongly supported from a conceptual standpoint by all of the prime

sponsors. In no instance does there appear to be any problem finding

willing participants and, zo date, dropout problems have been minimal.
AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS FOR THE YOUTH

EMPLOYMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ACT OF 1977 IN MICHIGAN:

Second Interim Report on Progress in Detroit, the Grand Rapids Consortium, Kalamazoo County, the Lansing Consortium,

and the Muskegon Consortium

This report was prepared by Peter Kobrak of Western

Michigan University under a grant from the Employment

and Training Administration, U. S. Department of Labor.

The authorship of this study is truly collegial. The

principal investigator assumes final responsibility for

the materials presented, but all of the following coauthors

provided valuable data and ideas: Lowell Baker, Gus

Breymann, Mark Clevey, Dan Hannigan, Jeffery Johnson,

and Robert Straits

Prepared for the National Council on Employment Policy,

Washington, D.C., June 12, 1978.

12G
As this Second Interim Report is written, it is still early in the life

of the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977 (YEDPA). All

five of the Michigan prime sponsors in this study have now begun implementation of the program, although in the case of Detroit and the Musekgon Consortium, activity only began in April. If any overall theme emerges from results

to date, it is perhaps the considerable diversity in what is being attempted

by various contractors in each of the areas, and the likelihood that the results particularly in terms of program quality, will vary more markedly than

is usually the case with a federal program.

Such wide variations are presumably to be expected in an experimental

piece of legislation, but the differences say as much about where we are in

the development of CETA generally as they do about the evolution of YEDPA in

particular. Veteran manpower contractors, for example, are demonstrating a

capacity to Latch on to the implications of knowledge development, while the

concept, regardless how it is defined, appears to be sailing over the heads

of the neophyte or small contractors. The diversity of responses to work

experience reflects often the strongly felt assumptions and philosz::17 of the

contractors who make adjustments in their modus operandi to comply with the

Act's requirements, but whose response emerges out of an established program

base, and all the intellectual baggage implied in such a base.

Such diversity is also encouraged by the federal emphasis on using a

broader gamut of delivery agents than is found in CETA generally--an emphasis

that these Michigan prime sponsors have picked up--and by the entry of the

schools into the manpower game. Indeed, the participation of these numerous

different types of actors has meant that even when prime sponsors react in a

somewhat similar vein, there are seemingly endless nuances. For example, all
five of the prime sponsors appear to be targeting slots consistc:nt:_y to the

disadvantaged, but that similarity can be lost in the numerous demographic and

psychological definitions of disadvantaged status encountered. In contrast,

the inability of prime sponsors and contractors alike to define youth participation operationally has resulted in numerous distinctions which rarely seem

to result in added youth involvement. But, if the pattern of response is

uneven and mixed, the information gathered in this report does suggest that

most local actors are making a sincere attempt to comply with what for many

of them is an offbeat sec of requirements.

I. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT

Responses to knowledge development must be seen partly in the strikingly

different perceptions that contractors have of what the term means. Some contractors define knowledge development in relation to their entire program,

while others focus on a particular program component. Some see it as pertaining primarily to their own program or to the specific clients engaged in the

experiment, while others envision the analysis as having implications nationally or at least for the prime sponsor area as a whole. Some are si.zply tracking their knowledge development components with their established financial

and management indicators, while others are focusing more directly on program

effectiveness.

That problem, however, overlaps with what the prime sponsors see as first

priorities in the implementation of YEDPA or other CETA programs. The experimental nature of knowledge development seems fragile at the local level where

fiscal and management information seem to dictate "reality." The niceties of

social science thus tended to be observed after such reporting procedures were

in place. Furthermore, in tne view of a Muskegon Consa,tium executive,
3 -

"Capacity building became critical when we moved from 100 to 900 stuaencs arc

added educational criteria." In Kalamazoo,too,the Project Director of the

W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research expressed a preference for adjusting its manpower system this year, and then developing a strategy for

working with the contractors on knowledge development in the Fiscal Year 1979

plan.

Knowledge Development Program Activities. But with or without prime

sponsor assistance, the contractors are performing knowledge development activities. It is too early in the implementation of the Kalamazoo and Muskegon

programs to report much progress, but the Kalamazoo County YETP contractors

are planning to follow through on the career and occupational education questions posed in their contracts, and in Muskegon the experiments, which follow

closely the career employment experience model outlined in the guidelines,

will be tested by the prime sponsor. The experiment being conducted by one of the Muskegon contractors underscores that the results of knowledge development must be measured in terms of knowledge diffusion as well as innovation.

This contractor is excited about the initial results obtained by hiring paraprofessionals as job coaches, rather than credentialed personnel to perform

the more traditional counselor role, and by having these coaches work intensively with disadvantaged youth on their attitude toward the world of work.

While the National Alliance of Businessmen and other manpower programs have

utilized this approach, it is apparently the first time that a Muskegon con- tractor has utilized it.

In Detroit one of the Manpower Department executives observed that it is

"difficult to sell the research component of knowledge development," but some experiments are beginning. Chrysler Learning, Inc. has designed an experiment

1 9J
4 that emphasizes intensive goal-direction and group counseling, careerrather

than vocational--education, and self-development and awareness. This program includes 225 disadvantaged youth and 25 youth drawn from families with

incomes above the poverty line. The relatively better-off youth are receiving services rather than wages, but all of the youth are placed in comparable

public and private nonprofit sector positions by the Detroit Public Schools.

The strong emphasis on relating employment to the overall development of the

youth is close to the approach articulated by the Schools and to the approach

previously used by Chrysler Learning in working with disadvantaged adults.

The research hypothesis is that students who can control their behavior and

gain knowledge of career opportunities, as well as themselves, will become

better students, and improve their academic performance. While it is too early

to assess results, the response from King High School, one of the toughest

in the City, and from its principal has been positive; he wants to expand the

counseling component during the next academic year, and make counseling an

elective available in the curriculum to all students.

Detroit's Opportunities Industrialization Center (OIC) plans to conduct

what is apparently the only experiment to determine what impact youth involvement might have on program development. As a contractor, OIC is forming its

own Youth Advisory Council. The information derived from this Council is intended to be utilized in subsequent program planning. The Metro-Youth Foundation is working with inner city youth in an attempt to place them in banking

and clerical jobs outside the City of Detroit limits.

After moving through the more plebian tasks of launching a new program,

the Grand Rapids Consortium (GRAMPC) staff returned in mid-April to the question of what contractors would be expected to do in order to comply with YEDPA's

1 3 0
-5-

knowledge development component. The GR.AMPC Programs Coordinator sent a mem- orandum to all contractors reminding them of the emphasis that YEDPA places on

knowledge development, defining the term, and requiring every contractor to

refine one or more of the concepts delineated in the Act into a "workable

knowledge development activity" that could and would be promptly implemented.

Contractors were requested to describe the degree and extent to which the

proposed project is new or different from existing (or previous) 1..rograms;

state the specific objectives and outcomes that might stem from such innovativeness: and assess the impact that such innovations "might have on other

programs for youth, for the community at large, or for State or Federal programs and activities for which the project might serve as a pilot or demonstration project."

GRAMPC's contractors responded to the prime sponsors' instructions for

the development of detailed concepts in early May. The Allegan County Resource Development Committee (ACRDC) chose to implement an evaluation program

to determine whether YCCIP participants' views of community needs were affected by YCCIP participation. Another CBO, Eight CAP, selected an internal

evaluation process aimed at demonstrating that the work experience jobs arranged for youths did, in fact, produce worthwhile outputs for communities,

which might not have been realized otherwise. The Wyoming Public Schools,

which had neglected to identify any knowledge development areas for YCCIP when

it originally submitted its funding proposal, later submitted a knowledge

development component designed to show that extraordinary attention to the

fostering of good work habits during. the project could lead to a higher success ratio in job placements for YCCIP "graduates." Finally, the Kent Community Action Program implemented a knowledge development activity testing

the premise that basic home repair skills, knowledge of health
- 6 -

and safety codes related to housing, and skills In assessing; mlaur come repair

needs could be taught to economically disadvantaged youth.

As in other Michigan prime sponsor areas, YEDPA's Youth Employment and

Training Programs (YETP) evoked amore thoughtful and detailed response to the

question of knowledge development activities than YCCIP. Wyoming Public

Schools, which operates an in-school program, stated that, "The knowledge

development activity selected for this contract is recognition of specific

job-related goals through broad career exposure. By May 31, 1978, participants will be exposed to a variety of available career possibilities and will,

through self-assessment, identify a specific career goal." Kent CAP, which had

originally identified no fewer than eleven research hypotheses for its outof-school program, narrowed its choice to a single premise: "That individual

and consistent attention, positive expectations, and patient close supervision

can be combined with the incentive of a paycheck to produce acceptable levels

of performance among (twenty) youths previously considered unsalvageable."

ACRDC, an operator of in-school and out-of-school YETP programs, expressed

its interest in learning whether greater cooperation with school personnel

would influence the number of participants receiving credit for YETP work

experience. Grand Rapids Public Schools (GRPS) expressed its intention to

place 1978 YETP information on its computer, although, when interviewed, one

of the GRPS administrators expressed concern that other, higher priority,

computer uses might prevent the Research Division from completing this analysis. Eight CAP selected an ambitious knowledge development activity designed

to show that opportunities for subsidized temporary employment could increase

school retention rates among thirty YETP participants.

The most rigorously formulated knowledge development experiments are

those developed by the Lansing Consortium. The premise to be tested in the
- Oa -

Consortium's YCCIP program is that the project approach for serving youch

employment and training needs is more effective than the traditional work

experience program approach in terms of the following measures: higher placement rates into unsubsidized employment, higher rates of placement into

meaningful employment, longer periods of participant retention in unsubsidized employment,
- 7 -

higher placement wages, higher wages after six months and one year of unsubsidized employment, a decreased school dropout rate, and an increase in the

rate of youths returning to school. The YETP experiment takes up the option

in the YEDPA guidelines of testing the desirability of broadening the opportunities for participation in YETP on the premise that disadvantaged youth

would benefit from working and training alongside non-disadvantaged youth.

The Evolving Methodology of the Knowledge Development Experiments.

Cooperating with the Lansing Consortium Evaluation Department in conducting

this experiment is the Lansing School District staff which developed the questionnaire and administered the pre-test. Two programs were established in

the experimental program. The targeted program includes youth from families

with incomes below 85 percent of the lower living standard income level. This

control group will be compared with a trea oup consisting of youth

drawn from families with income above or below 85 percent of the lower living

standard income level. Comparisons will be made between the two groups on the

basis of classroom achievement, school retention and completion, entrance into

college, and entry into the world of work. In the YCCIP experiment, an ex- perimental group of 16 to 19 year old youth participating in YCCIP will be

compared with a control group of 16 to 19 year old youth drawn from CETA

Title I work experience programs. Both groups will be homogeneous with re- spect to sexual composition and racial and ethnic makeup.

The Muskegon Consortium prime sponsor has arranged for each contractor

to do a monthly work experience evaluation of participants. For their part

the youth will be doing evaluations of their supervisors that are scheduled

for the middle and end of their programs. A pre-test and post-test research

design has also been arranged in conjunction with Muskegon's OIC, since that
- d -

agency is conducting the intake procedure for ali YEDPA youth. each participant at the beginning and end of the program will take the ABEL math and

reading tests, WRAT spelling tests, the self-directed search and vocational

exploration test, and the Hartman and Rokeach values profile test, and will

also undergo an interview assessment. Although the tests take only about 15

minutes each to administer, the logistics of arranging for 400 youth to take

every test extend the process over a week. Perhaps in part because the tests

are administered by a CBO, however, youths have apparently not complained

about this process. Test scores are forwarded by OIC to the appropriate contractor in each case. One advantage of this more extensive intake process

is that it is occasionally identifying someone with skills who can be placed

in unsubsidized employment without taking the program--skills that would not

have surfaced in the usual TA intake process. Kent CAP is also testing

for YETP improvement in math ani reading, and reports that in Grand Rapids

and its surrounding an....A rhere are disadvantaged high school youth who arr,

working at the third Ind isartr grade levels, and who cannot wrin-. their

names, even though they sometimes have high verbal skills and, as one CA?

veteran put it, "You'd be surprised how well they can figure their checks."

The impetus for the more ambitious knowledge development experiments

appears to come largely from prime sponsor staffs. The more directly involved

the prime sponsor staffs are, the more developed the research seems to be.

There are certainly exceptions to this rule. Formative Evaluation Research

Associates (FERA), an Ann Arbor-based consulting firm, is working with Chrysler

Learning in Detroit, and the school districts are utilizing their own research

capacity, to the extent that they deem it appropriate, wherever they are. But

in Lansing and Muskegon the prime sponsor staffs are directly involved, while

in Detroit and Kalamazoo, where contractors were left to their own devices,
9

such research is generally lagging. In the Grand Rapids Consortium, the staff

has met with contractors, but has encouraged them to do self-evaluation in the

hope of accustoming them to doing their own evaluation and to avoid giving the

impression that they intend to interfere through such evaluation. In order to

limit necessary contact, the GRAMPC staff has encouraged the programs during

the first year to tackle relatively straightforward experiments.

The Impact of Knowledge Development. The knowledge development mandate

has provided an incentive in these Michigan prime sponsor areas for structuring evaluations of the YEDPA programs. It is one of the few times that CETA

has addressed itself in guidelines to the question of program quality, rather

than simply quantity, and that emphasis has drawn favorable comments. The

existence of these specifications generally has spurred productive activity,

and the "10 percent special component" monies provided under YETP resulted

in Lansing's program evaluation of the mixed-income program concept. The

specifications made the experiment easier to design and implement, and the

funds permitted a more concentrated, large-scale effort than was deemed possible previously. Ultimately the real worth of these experiments will aepend

on how extensively they are subsequently used; and how widely they are applicable., but such judgments can only be made later in the year. In the meantime such considerations seem to argue for more direct involvement of the

prime sponsors and contractors together in such research design and implementation.

II. THE CONTENT AND QUALITY OF WORK EXPERIENCE

YEDPA posed a substantial challenge for prime sponsors and contractors- -

could they simultaneously meet the demand of a countercyclical economic policy

that jobs be filled quickly and the demand of an enlightened social policy
VI

- 10 -

that the program provide youth with more than rudimentary supportive serv.ces

and training and with work experience that is more than simply a glorified

form of income maintenance? The reasons why two of the five prime sponsors

did not begin their YETP programs until April, and thus did not meet this

challenge, are a reminder of the numerous exogenous forces that impinge on

local manpower program implementation.

In Detroit the implementation period coincided wi'h the demotion of seven

senior officials in the Manpower Department. Mayor Coleman Young observed

in a press conference that the Department's operation was "below standard,"

and in what subsequently became known as "the Good Friday massacre," the administration moved, among others, the Department's director, associate director, deputy director, planning director, and operations director. While the

reorganization may have slowed progress, the Manpower Department has had difficulty launching some of its other manpower programs too. The involvement

of the Detroit schools may also have partially slowed the effort. Their

operating procedures as well as planning process are simply not designed for

the rapid reaction envisioned in YEDPA. For example, the hiring 'irocucure

for bringing counselors and teachers into federally-funded, temporary programs

is the same as for full-time, tenured slots. The time-consuming safeguards

built into making hiring decisions with long-term implications for the school

system were thus observed in selecting personnel for a program scheduled to

end on September 30. The arrival of YETP and YCCIP also coincided with the

award of a Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project (YIEPP). This multimillion dollar experiment is also behind schedule, and, thanks to the literally thousands of job commitments that it entails and the strong backing and

interest that the program has attracted within the business community, it looms

large in the minds of executives who in some cases are responsible for implementing YETP and YCCIP too.

1 '1 "' td
- An entirely different set of circumstances intervened in Muskegon. It

was widely assumed that the Muskegon Area Intermediate School District (MAISD)

would sign a Local Educational Agreement (LEA), but when its financial demands

were not met, MAISD suddenly withdrew in mid-February, leaving the prime sponsor in the position of having to reach separate agreements with the individual

school districts. The prime sponsor was also concerned that YEDPA should be

launched utilizing a systems approach that would result in a closer integration

of its program components than Muskegon had previously attempted.

Kalamazoo County's YCCIP program has so far proven to be a victim of insufficient interest by potential contractors. Four contractors initially

competed for grants. One did not meet the YEDPA guidelines leaving two small

contracts involving a total of only five slots and the balance available for

the fourth contractor, the Kalamazoo Public Schools (KPS). Part of this grant

request was funded outright, while the remainder was identified in the additional 25 percent beyond its regular YCCIP allocation that the Chicago Regional

Office also asked Kalamazoo to submit. If more money became available, these

funds could be used to expand the KPS contract. Then KPS withdrew its funding

request in compliance with a union objection to the proposed project. .Region

V told Kalamazoo County to use instead the projects listed in its additional

25 percent proposal. Since the prime sponsor had targeted those slots for

KPS too, that alternative provided no additional options, and the county could

not legally create new projects--it would have to submit new proposals. By

then the larger sums in Titles I and VI and the summer youth program were

occupying the attention of the prime sponsor, and it appears as of this writing that only about $10,000 of the YCCIP funds will be allocated. The prime

sponsor will probably try to carry over the funds until next year.
- 12-

There is no real incentive for local prime sponsors to hire quickly unca:

the YEDPA guidelines, and thus achieve the national goal of utilizing manpower

programs as a countercyclical economic policy. Errors made in haste may lead

to criticism from local politicians and from Department of Labor (DOL) Region

V monitors, and may undercut program quality. Prime sponsors might view the

issue of rapid program implementation differently if they were confronted

with a possible loss of federal funds, but the two Michigan prime sponsors

who have moved most slowly in filling slots are confident, nevertheless, that

they can meet their overall program goals and spend all of the funds allocated

to them, even though they are starting late. The distinction between meeting

the goal of a countercyclical economic policy and expending all, of the available funds within the prescribed time limit is important. The tension for

the prime sponsor is not between the quantity of jobs created quickly and the

quality of the jobs--it is between developing program quality and spending

all available money in order to avoid the political charge that federal funds

available for the home folks went unheeded. Beyond those two goals, the relationship between countercyclical economic policy and manpower programming is a

federal--not a local--problem. Prime sponsors are aware and vocal in pointing

out that moving more rapidly than is required by these goals may lead to disallowed costs levied by the same Department of Labor that invited them to hire

rapidly. The incentives are thus in the direction of "covering your ass"

rather than "moving it."

Struggling To Improve the Quality of Work Experience. Interviews with

selected contractors reveal an awareness that YETP and YCCIP are programs intended to provide youth with work experience, where relevant to program activity,

for the purpose of career development and enhancement rather than simply with

glorified income maintenance. As part of the career employment experience

1 'Ir) i td,
- 13 -

(C.E.E.) activity of the YETP program, emphasis is placed on complementing

work experience with services that aid the youth in their transition from

school to work. These services generally include, at a minimum, some job

information, counseling, and placement services. Under YCCIP a number of contractors are utilizing "employability training" and a few try to develop vocational skills that will enhance participant employability upon program completion. The mandatory YEDPA "employability plan" can be found in contractor

files in all five locations, while the awarding of academic credit varies by

project as well as by prime sponsor. Occasional complaints are heard that

the money and time devoted to injecting such components into youth programs

might better be spent in simply hiring more kids, but more frequently there is

acceptance and concurrence with the program rationale.

Contractor reaction to work experience has assumed numerous forms, but,

not surprisingly in view of the legislation, the synthesis of work and services

is a common thread that runs through many of the newer programs. In Detroit,

for example, Wayne State University's Division of Community Services has traditionally placed considerable emphasis on raising the educational level of cha

disadvantaged students with whom it works so it needed little encouragement

to build some of this emphasis into its YCCIP project. Chrysler Learning, Inc.

was selected as a subcontractor by the Detroit Public Schools partly because

it could place the student in a work experience setting that would be more conducive to career exposure.

Sometimes education and work experience are alternatives available to

meet student needs. The three YETP components included in Detroit's "SER"

program are a youth basic education program, a clerical training class, and

an OJT program. The clerical training program allows students who normally

must have a GED in hand to enter initially without it, while the OJT program

14u
- 14 -

allows the individual to attend an educational institution if a criterion such

as the GED is requisite for employment. Exceptions to this rule in some prime

sponsor areas are a few Neighborhood Youth Corps programs that have apparently

plodded along for ten years or more sporting the same look while wearing whatever label was in vogue, and some recent Title I models that were expanded

when YEDPA surfaced.

Program deliverers have encountered numerous impediments in seeking to

upgrade the quality of available work experience. YEDPA job developers in

Muskegon report that they have met stiff competition from the federally funded

"YEP" and "STIP" programs and from Co-op programs--all of which are catering

to youth whose family incomes are above the poverty line. Some contractors

have chafed at the stipulation that youth can be placed only in public or private nonprofit agency jobs, particularly in the light of the goal that the

same youth be ultimately placed in unsubsidized private sector positions.

Indeed, one public school in the Muskegon area assumed when it signed up to

do work experience under the C.E.E. component that it could place in the private sector, as it did in the lase of its Co-op program, and the Muskegon

Consortium's program was delayed partly by the need to add an addendum to

the relevant contracts allowing the schools to do OJT as well as work experience. Contractors in several jurisdictions have come across Michigan as well

as federal regulations pertaining to the hiring of minors that compelled the

redefinition or elimination of some apparent job openings. By 1977 these

provisions were sufficiently numerous and complex that the Michigan Department

of Education was moved to publish a Guide to Child Labor Provisions for Co-op

Education Programs.

It is the work sites themselves that in a number of cases are the Achilles'

heel of work experience. The rapid implementation of YETP and YCCIP compelled
- 15 -

prime sponsors to fall back on traditional sources and types of youth employment. As one prime sponsor staffer explained:

We were able to devote little attention to getting better work sites

or improving the work sites that we had. You don't have that luxury

when you have to put 650 people to work in a week. You're going to

beg, borrow, and steal jobs. Take any work site that you can get.

Use the work sites that you had before. And those work sites are the

key to program quality. The Act further inclined us in that direction by telling us to use the same experienced contractors who, of

course, bring with them their own work sites. They have to give you

time.

In Kalamazoo, for example, the occupational titles in C.E.E. are clerical/

receptionist, custodial/maintenance, bus aide, school aide, and teacher's

aide; in work experience they are clerical/receptionist, custodial/maintenance,

day care aide, recreational aide, food service assistant, and teacher's aide.

Although prime sponsors have sometimes developed a few more challenging positions, the norm is jobs of this type. As a Muskegon prime sponsor staffer put

it wistfully, "Where do you go in the public sector for a large variety of jobs

that you can match up with the widely varying career aspirations of these

youth?" A Grand Rapids manpower expert encountered considerable skepticism

among the YEDPA contractors, explaining: "First, the feds hit 'em with all

of these quantitative placement milestones and then came all of this qualitative stuff." The Lansing Consortium too suffered from insufficient information. It had a list of the job sites when passing on the projects, but had few

specifics on the jobs themselves. The difficulty of identifying worthwhile

clots is compounded by what one prime sponsor executive termed the "plantation

psychology" of some agencies who agree to take whatever number of youth are

available without having any idea of what to do with them; the reaction is one

of "We'll take whatever number you can provide and then we'll put three buggers

here and three buggers there."
- 16-

Tightening Work Quality Through Closer Supervision. One way in which

all of the prime sponsors have sought to enhance the quality of work experience is through tighter monitoring than is traditionally accorded to youth

programs and, in accord with the YEDPA regulations, through a more promising

ratio of students to supervisors. In the Muskegon area the on-site supervisors are being provided by the contractors responsible for the work experience and OJT. Each contractor also has a roving supervisor who, in the view

of the Consortium staff, has made a difference. If the job-site supervisor

encounters problems, they are discussed with the supervisor from the contractor before corrective action is taken. Next year it will be stipulated by

the Consortium that training of all youth supervisors is mandatory. The Grand

Rapids Consortium required in its YETP and YCCIP Requests for Proposals (RFP's)

that contractors maintain at least a 1 to 12 supervisory ratio. In order to

meet the YEDPA and GRAMPC guidelines, most contractors have sought additional

supervisors. Detroit has also included enough money for supervision in its

contracts so that new people are generally being hired. In accord with the

task-oriented definition of their function, they are supposed to measure output against goals and objectives, and oversee the integration of work and

training. The supervisor-participant ratio in the Lansing Consortium's YCCIP

projects is generally 1 to 3 or 4 and never more than 1 to 10. Supervisors

include Title V' crew chiefs, a school science teacher, and City of Lansing

1es and Re, eation Department employees. Kalamazoo is also utilizing some

public o_nrice employees (PSE) as supervisors, but in some cases it finds

that existing staff who heretofore have had little supervisory experience are

performing this function, in addition to their regular duties.

While no deliberate effort is underway to create a separate class of

YEDPA jobs, the positions can be distinguished for several reasons from other

1 13
- 17 -

slots created by the private or public sectors. Virtually all of the positions

are at the minimum wage, and many are part-time. In Kalamazoo, for example,

YETP and YCCIP workers average about 22 hours and 35 hours per week respectively. Many are trainee positions, and, given the reluctance of employers to

hire youth, they often depend on the willingness of an on-site supervisor to

make a commitment in time and energy. The Grand Rapids Consortium has tried

to alter the form takenby the jobs to coincide with the interests of the

youth participants. It has circulated all of the job titles included in the

YETP and YCCIP annual plans, along with instructions for modifying job titles

and wage rates as youths make new career choices. So far, however, grant

modification requests have not been submitted by any contractors.

Linking Work Experience to Educational Curricula Through Academic Credit.

The critical link needed to tie work experience to education is the granting

of academic credit. Such recognition would seem to be needed as much to gain

the cooperation of the educational institution as the attention of the student.

The schools, however, do not always see academic credit as critical in relating youth education and employment whether or not they favor awarding it.

A Grand Rapids school administrator argued that the students were already

receiving academic, credit for so many activities that they can often graduate

early now--the school's problem is keeping them in class long enough to meet

their basic educational needs. The lure for the student under these circumstances is seen as the payment on the job. Sounding a similar theme, the

Detroit Public Schools in their YETP application anticipated that "The subsidized work experience will be used as the incentive for enrollee participation and success."

For their part the CEO's are more receptive about working with the schools

and returning youth to the classroom than the rhetoric of the '60's about the
- 18 -

"failure of the schools" would suggest. CB0 administrators in Detroit, Grand

Rapids, and Muskegon pointed to the serious basic education deficiencies possessed by the disadvantaged youth in their programs. While some emphasized

"employability training" and others vocational skill development, there was

a universal determination to utilize YEDPA either to provide youth directly

or indirectly with more education or to motivate them to return to school.

Some CBO's were more convinced that the schools had adapted in recent years

to the needs of their disadvantaged students than others, but all shared a

conviction that the retention or return of the youth would be a most desirable program outcome. Some CBO's indicated that they were trying to enlist

the assistance of supervisors to re-enforce the educational program components

through activities performed at the work site.

Observers differ as to how motivated the schools are to grant academic credit

but the prime sponsors generally manifest confidence that arrangements will be

successfully completed in conjunction with Fiscal Year 1979 YEDPA planning.

Kalamazoo's Youth Opportunities Unlimited (YOU), which is a division of the

Kalamazoo Valley Intermediate School District (KVISD) and is responsible for

the in-school program, has concentrated this year on restructuring its C.E.E.,

but it is confider.L that next year academic credit will be obtained in several

local schools. The Muskegon Consortium has also joined work experience to its

C.E.E., but postponed linkage to the existing ee-seational curricula through

Academic credit until next year, although the Fr ,itpoit School District is

offering such credit to 36 YETP participants this year. In the Lansing Consortium (LTCTMPC) a YCCIP project run by the DeWitt: Publlc Schools combines

work experience and various ecological activita.s. liv,h school ecology

class, with the science teacher as project diro'ic ,:lvndiag a total of
- 19 -

approximately 60 class hours developing brochures about nature areas and parks

and mapping trails and rivers. One academic credit is awarded for this classroom activity. To promote progress toward the granting of academic

credit, the Grand Rapids Consortium in mid-April required every YETP and YCCIP

contractor to develop a plan and timetable for reaching agreements with LEA's

by June 30. It is also planning to stipulate that provision of academic credit be included in all LEA agreements next year.

Detroit is experimenting with an interesting variation on linking work

experience to traditional educational curricula. Concerned at the high dropout rate in its expensive and extensive CETA allied health career programs,

it is conducting an assessment and orientation program designed to introduce

youth to the wide range of opportunities available in health care services.

The contractors gauge the student's ability, achievement, and vocational

interests in order that the individual can be directed into areas that suit

their abilities or in some cases out of the health field before weeks or months

of valuable training time have elapsed.

There is little indication from the various prime sponsor areas that the

competencies derived from work experience are being documented, no less validated. Contractors have generally either developed their own employability

plans or received them from the prime sponsors, but monitoring by at least two

of the jurisdictions indicates that they are not always kept current. One

inspection revealed that the contractor was keeping these plans not in the

students' files but in a bank vault across the hall, The most systematic

audit occurred in Kalamazoo where every fourth file of the YETP in-school and

out-of-school youth was pulled. This internal audit by the prim.: sponsor's

management agency revealed that only 35 percent of the out-of-school files

and 31 percent (3,7 the in-school files contained
-20-

the written job descriptions required under the regulations in the case of all

OJT and work experience positions. In addition to monitoring for such discrepancies, some of the prime sponsors are beginning to generate alternative

sources of information that will also contain some of this information. The

Muskegon Consortium has developed a form to be filled out by the on-site supervisor at the conclusion of the project that includes a listing of the skills,

hours of experience, and degree of accomplishment attained by the youth. This

form will not only provide feedback on what was actually accomplished at the

work site, but is also designed so that it can serve as a resume in the youth's

subsequent job search.

It is too early to judge the impact of the program components on the youth,

but it is interesting that three of the five prime sponsors on their own initiative have prepared questionnaires to administer to the youth on completion

of the program. The Grand Rapids, Lansing, and Muskegon Consortia have each

developed questions measuring attitudinal and behavioral changes in the youth.

Such impact analyses are rare in the implementation of CETA in these areas,

and seem directly attributable to YEDPA.

Tangible Outputs Manifested by YCCIP. One of the messages communicated

loudly and distinctly to these Michigan prime sponsors by the national and

regional DOL offices alike was that YCCIP projects should produce tangible

and visible community benefits. The projects that seem to have attracted the

most community attention are those in the inner city areas of Grand Rapids,

Detroit, and Muskegon. A number of the youth in Grand Rapids are working on

weatherization projects where, as one local manpower planner put it, "They really

work the little rascals." Often the youth come from the same neighborhood or one

nearby, and there appears to be something of a spirit of "Yes, I worked on that
- 21 -

house." A crew in Muskegon is helping to refurbish Heritage Village, a downtown area engaged in selective urban renewal. The Muskegon Consortium has

also begun a Dial-a-Hand project where senior citizens call in for home maintenance projects; designated a crew that puts numbers on houses in Muskegon

Heights, one of the poorer areas within the metropolitan area, so that fire

and ambulance services can respond more quickly to calls; assigned a crew to

the Neighborhood Improvement Association to work on community gardens; and

begun a survey of community needs within the Association's jurisdiction.

Northwest Detroit has become one of the city's increasingly blighted

areas, as the Dutch Elm disease has spread through the area. Wayne State

University's project expects to measure the progress made by planting new

trees as well as the educational achievements that the youth derive from the

work and from educational activities tied into the project. Some of the block

clubs within the impacted area have encouraged the project to work on their

particular streets. Chrysler Learning, Inc. intends to include skill evaluation as one of its tangible benefits, and that commitment is built into the

contract. Lansing's Capital Area Community Services (CACS) agency has already repaired or weatherized 60 homes, while other agencies are building picnic tables, constructing a school swimming pool, and working on a variety of

park improvement and environmental projects.

III. THE LIMITED NATURE OF YOUTH PARTICIPATION

In view of the limited extent to which most prime sponsor areas have

succeeded in involving adult clients in CETA decision making, perhaps vigorous

youth participation would have, indeed, been surprising. But the concept of

youth participation has generally received short shrift in YEDPA's implementation by these Michigan prime sponsors.
-22-

All five of the prime sponsors have duly added youth to those committees

focusing most directly on what local YEDPA policy should be. The Lansing Consortium's Youth Council selected one youth each from the CETA in- and out-ofschool programs, and the Council's labor and business representatives drew a third youth from the community at large. The youth added to the Muskegon

Consotium's Youth Subcommittee were identified on the basis of recommendations

from high school principals, student governments, and other members of the

Youth Subcommittee itself. In Kalamazoo the youth's names were supplied by

the primary youth program subcontractor, Youth Opportunities Unlimited, and

the Youth Council extended invitations to them accordingly. Members of the

Grand Rapids Consortium's Advisor 1/Council nominated the three youth who joined

that body. Detroit has drawn the names of six youth slated to participate

from community groups throughout the city that specialize in working with youth.

None of the prime sponsors are relying with any conviction on youth to

play a major role in decision making related to the administration, evluation,

or delivery of youth services, as envisioned by some of YEDPA's Congressional

sponsors. The knowledge required to follow such policy discussions appears

to be simply beyond the grasp of these young people regardless of their relationship to CETA and YEDPA. As one prime sponsor executive explained, "Keeping the youth awake is enough; they haven't been able to understand it."

Attempts to utilize the youth in this prescribed role have simply fizzled.

In Kalamazoo youth attendance at Youth Service Committee meetings vacillates

between poor and nonexistent. Youth in the Muskegon Youth Advisory Subcommittee occasionally comment, but the contributions are fragmented, and do not

provide much of a youth perspective. Because it is a large Consortium, GRAMPC's

structure is formalized. It was, therefore, deemed important to integrate the
-23-

youth within a standing committee rather than create an ad hoc committee that

would have difficulty fitting into an already elaborate decision-making process. But even after attending several meetings, these youth have continued

to play an essentially passive role. The Lansing Consortium has enjoyed some- what greater success in relating to its youth. Meetings are scheduled for

7:00 a.m. so that they can attend, and they have done so. In response to youth

requests for a definition of their role, LTCRMPC has emphasized the importance

of the youth communicating their attitudes to those implemeLting CETA youth

programs.

Redefining Youth Participation in YEDPA Program Planning. Particular

prime sponsors or contractors have enjoyed greater success in engaging the

youth in a fruitful dialogue when they have redefined the role that youth

participation could and should play. Significantly, a number of organizations

are independently thinking in these directions, and while their efforts may

not precisely square with the letter of the YEDPA statute, they seem in accord

with its spirit. The approaches discussed here, however, often are still in

the planning stage, and they reflect approaches to youth involvement that do

differ from youth decision making as envisioned in Washington, D.C.

The key to these redefinitions of youth participation is their emphasis

on obtaining feedback from youth rather than opinions on what the overall

program should or should not be. The latter assumes a policy orientation and

an ability to conceptualize abstractly that seem almost the antithesis of

what one could legitimately expect most youth--no less disadvantaged youth- -

to bring to decision-making sessions. But youth do have reactions to the programs in which they participate, whether or not they are clear on their goals

in the world of work or philosophically, and a number of proposals are geared
-24-

at obtaining that feedback. Several contractors and prime sponsor staff members have evinced a determination to learn more about what youth want and to

provide the individual youth with more of a chance to get it; this perspective

seems to stand in marked contrast to efforts made along these lines in previous CETA programs. It is still too early, however, to assess the success

of these efforts or even to determine to what extent youth will detect these

differences.

The airing of grievances appears to be one of the functions performed

by the youth on the councils. These representatives and sometimes visitir,

program participants too have on occasion raised questions in a manner that

implied that the council were a grievance body. "They come," as one adult

member of GRAMPC's Advisory Committee explained, "to see that they are done

right by." When asked her opinion of her council role, a Lansing member also

took the position that "As a student, I have a right to speak out andto get

answers." For their part the Grand Rapids Public Schools plan to set up for

their large program, building by building, youth groups to hear grievances.

A number of agencies have already or are planning to circulate questionnaires to obtain youth reactions to what they are doing and recommendations

for program modifications. The Lansing Consortium staff thus surveyed youth

program participants and a group of nonparticipants on appropriate programming

and target group goals for Fiscal Year 1979. The 65 responses on goals from

program participants and 27 questionnaires submitted by nonparticipant youth initia-ly

were mixed with 28 other responses from the Consortium Youth Council members

and CETA youth program deliverers so that it was not possible to determine how

the youth as a group felt about these issues. However, the vast majority of

respondents, 36 percent and 83 percent respectively, indicated that the most

important goals for youth employment and training programs were to increase the

51
-25-

number of youth receiving career-related work experience, classroom training,

and employment services and to increase area opportunities for youth training

and skill development. Responses on the issue of target group priorities

were more widely dispersed, although three target groups attracted the attention of almost half of the respondents: economically disadvantaged youth,

youth aged 16-19 years, and unemployed out-of-school youth. This input was

significant in the formulation of the Consortium's FY '79 youth program and

target group goals. The Grand Rapids Consortium has also designed a questionnaire to elicit client views on programmatic quality and impact.

Contractors in Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Muskegon have indicated their

intention to sample the views of their program paxtl.r.ipants. The Greater

Opportunities Industrialization Center (GOIC) in Detroit has expressed concern that there is no such feedback meelnism currently available and its

intention to disseminate a questionnain: accordingly. The Grand Rapids Public

Schools plan to institute a Youth Advisory Board that will comment on various

program components and review time sheets and other administrative procedures.

Each of the 12 participants will be asked to bring in three interviews based

on a checklist. A Muskegon CBO, the Urban Opportunity Development Team, intends to disseminate a questionnaire to tap systematically what it is that

most concerns the youth in its program.

The Muskegon Consortium staff is debating a proposal to revitalize its

Youth P.ouncil by creating a parliamentary system for student government in

which secretaries from every school parliament throughout the jurisdiction

would be assigned to the Youth Council. The question has been raised whether

the attention and interest of this wide gamut of youth can be attracted to

YEDPA. GOIC in Detroit has taken an entire class of youth from the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Projects (YIEPP), and turned it into a youth council.
-26-

WIC has vested responsibility for youth program planning in this council,

and has told the youth that the programs are really theirs. The City of Detroit Manpower Department (CODM) is planning to form a Youth Council responsible for all of its youth programs. It has tentatively identified a list

of persons to serve including six youth, and has stipulated that a stipend

of $5.00 will be paid when a youth attends A meeting. An astute counselor

known for his excellent rapport with disadvantaged youth has been asked to

work informally with the council members. Together with the Board of Educat'cn, CODM has also supported the development of a play about employment. It

has hired a cost of 50 Detroit youth who are performing it throughout the

school system The youth answer questions about the play from their peers

after the performance; a software package to accompany the production is now

being written.

Perhaps the most ambitious approach to participation occurred in Kalamazoo where the Chairman of the Youth Services Committee and the county's staff

director took steps to increase the ability of the Committee as a whole to

assume the initiative in youth planning for FY '79. To that end the Committee

held a meeting whose main purpose was "to brainstorm on possible goals, ideas,

and programs YETP and YCCIP can address." Asked to list their suggestions,

Committee members jointly compiled 32 concerns. Now engaged in the planning

exercise, Committee members asked for more detail on YEDPA's overall goals,

and the director read portions of DOL's youth Planning Charter. After a

lengthy discussion on the suggestions, the Committee asked each member to select and rank numerically the five most important suggestions and assign a

percentage weighting to each selection. Seeing the Committee's high emphasis

on employment skills, OJT, basic education, job placement, and evaluation

methods, the Chairman noted informally that the consensus seemed to be the
-27-

need for long-range solutions to youth employment problems.

At the following meeting the staff director provided a categorization

of the Committee suggestions under such general headings as Employability

Development and Occupational Skill Development. He then laid out for the

Committee the administrative, programmatic, and policy implications of each

program activity, identified by the Committee, now grouped into broader classifications, and reported on the ranking and weighting that each activity

had received. Committee members became fascinated but nervous about how little they knew, as they grappled with the problem of fixing priorities among

the suggestions that they had made. There was consequently a willingness to

cooperate when the project director for the in- and out-of-school programs

(who had been absent from the previous meeting) appeared at the next session

with a letter expressing concern at how far the Committee had moved from con- tinuation of the present programs. Expressing the view that "if major changes

occur within the programs, sufficient time be given them for their planning

and decision-making processes," he recommended instead that the Committee work

with the contractor to improve and expand the present program. The Committee's

subsequent agreement to do so underscores the difficulty of meshing overall

planning with ongoing programming, but in the course of the exercise the Committee did to some extent manage to relate the suggestions that it had developed in its own words and thoughts to DOL's jargon, furthermore, if it follows

through, the Committee may have laid the groundwork for gaining the knowledge

necessary so that it can engage in goal setting with a clearer understanding

of what the countractor is doing and can do, what the Committee wants done,

and how the two mesh. In the final analysis it would seem that such institution building is the basis for decision making by youth and adult :itizens alike.
IV. DELIVERING YOUTH JOBS AND SERVICES TO THOSE WHO NEED THEM MOST

The intent of YEDPA's Congressional sponsors and of DOL is clearly that

jobs, work experience and services available under this legislation should

be targeted to disadvantaged youth. The data available from Kalamazoo and

the Grand Rapids and Lansing Consortia indicate that this intent is being met.

The Detroit and Muskegon Consortium programs did not bring on YEDPA participants in the second quarter of FY '78, but they have also expressed confidence

that high proportions of their youth will fall within DOL's "significant segments," particularly since this requirement is in accord with the philosophy

that they as prime sponsors have emphasized.

The client characteristics of youth from the three prime sponsors active

in the second quarter of Fiscal Year 1978 demonstrate that a considerable variety of disadvantaged youth needs are being met under YEDPA. In Kalamazoo, 87

percent of the youth meet the economically disadvantaged guidelines. As Table 1

shows, more than two-thirds of the YETP participants have dropped out of school,

and 21 percent come from families on welfare. Half are black or Spanish American, and 5 percent are handicapped. The Grand Rapids Consortium's YETP and

YCCIP programs serve youth with a markedly different relationship to education.

Ninety-eight percent of the YETP youth, as can be seen in Table 2, are enrolled

in school, while 93 percent of the YCCIP youth are high school dropouts. In

the light of the Grand Rapids P blic School system's heavy involvement in the

YETP program, it is significant that virtually all of the participants are economically disadvantaged and 64 percent come from families on welfare. All

of the students in both programs come from families earning 85 percent or less

5
TABLE 1 YETP and YCCIP Client Characteristics During the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 1978 for Kalamazoo County

Total Clients Served Total Terminations Entered Employment

Characteristics YETP

Number Percent

YCCIP

Number Percent YETP

Number Percent YCCIP

Number Percent YETP

Number Percent YCCIP

Number Percent

SexMale 58 51 3 SO 0 0 0 0 0 Female 43 43 3 50 2 100 0 1 100

Age 14-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16-17 48 47 4 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 18-19 36 36 2 33 2 100 0 1 100 0

20-21 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 6 over 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Education High sch. student 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 High sch. dropout 68 68 5 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 High sch, completed 18 18 1 11 2 100 0 1 100 0 Attending post h.s. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Income

AFDC/pub, assist. 21 21 1 17 1 50 0 1 100 0 Econ. Disadv. 87 87 4 67 2 100 0 1 100 0 85% or less lower standard living

14 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Status

Family Head 1 6 2 33 1 50 0 1 100 0 Family Member 47 47 2 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unrelated Individual 47 47 2 33 1 50 0 0 0 0 Ethnic Group

White 57 56 4 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 Black 44 44 2 33 2 100 0 1 IOU 0 As. Indian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spanish Am. 6 6 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 Limited English

speaking ability

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Migrant or Seasonal 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Farm Family Member

Veteran 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Handicapped 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Offender 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Labor Force Status Underemployed 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unemploryl 99 98 6 100 2 100 0 1 100 0 Other r--

... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TABLE 2 YETP and YCCIP Client Characteristics the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 1918 for Grand Rapids Consortium

Characteristics Total Clients Served Total Terminations Entered Employment YETP

Number Percent YCCIP

Number Percent YETP

Number Percent YCCIP

Number Percent

YETP

Number Percent YCCIP

Number Percent Sex

Male 386 52 21 18 45 64 0 0 11 19 0 Female 355 48 6 22 25 36 1 100 3 21 0 Age

14-15 216 31 0 0 21 30 0 0 1 7 0

16 -11 380 51 17 63 41 59 1 100 9 64 18-19 78 11 10 37 7 10 0 0 3 22 0 20-21 7 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 226over 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Education

High sch, student 723 98 0 0 68 91 0 100 12 86 0 High sch, dropout 18 2 25 93 2 3 1 0 2 14 0 High sch, completed 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 Attending post h.s, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 Family Income

AFDC/pub, assist, 475 64 11 40 47 67 0 0 8 57 0

Econ, Disadv, 734 99 23 85 70 100 1 100 14 100 0 85% or less lower

standard living

741 100 27 100 70 100 1 100 14 100 0 Family Status

Family Head 14 2 1 3 3 4 0 0 2 14 0 Family Member 714 96 22 81 66 94 1 100 12 86 0 Unrelated Individual 13 2 4 15 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic Group White 442 60 21 78 46 66 0 0 13 93 0 Black 234 32 5 19 21 30 0 0 1 7 0 Am. Indian 12 2 1 4 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 Other 53 7 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 Spanish Am, 45 6 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 Limited English

speaking ability

19 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 7 0 Migrant or Seasonal 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Farm Family Member Veteran 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Handicapped 5 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Offender 9 1 2 7 2 3 0 0

1 7 0 Labor Force Status

Underemployed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Uaemplor. 18 2 2] 100 , 3 1 100 2 14 0 Other 723 98 0 0 6 97 0

0 12 86 0

159
TABLE 3 YETP and YCCIP Client Characteristics During the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 1978 for Lansing Consortium

Characteristics

Total Clients Served Total Terminations Entered Employment YETP

Number Percent YCCIP

Number Percent YETP

Number Percent

YCCIP

Number Percent YETP Number Percent

YCCIP

Number Percent

SexMale 330 51 40 85 46 58 9 82 13 72 2 100 Female 315 49 1 15 34 42 2 18 5 28 0 0 Age

14-15 182 28 0 0 9 11 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 -11 314 49 24 51 39 49 5 45 6 33 1 50 18-1C 109 11 23 49 18 23 6 55 6 33 1 50 20-21 39 6 0 0 13 16 0 0 6 33 0 0

22 & over 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Education High sch. student 516 89 12 26 52 65 1 9

3 17 0 0 High sch. dropout 40 6 30 64 14 18 10 91 9 50 2 100 High sch, completed 23 4 5 10 9 11 0 0 6 33 0 0 Attending post h.s. 6 1 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Income

AFDC/pub. assist, 286 44 10 21 35 44 1 9 7 39 0 0 Econ, Disadv. 542 84 32 68 68 85 0 0 16 89 2 100 85% or less lower

standard living

597 93 21 45 69 86 7 64 13 72 1 50 Family Status

Family Head 68 11 3 6 6 7 1 9

3 17 0 0 Family Member 536 83 37 79 58 73 9 82 10 55 2 100 Unrelated Individual 41 6 7 15 16 20 1 9

5 28 0 0 Ethnic Group White 452 70 33 70 52 65 9 82 12 67 2 100 Black 153 24 10 21 21 26 2 18 4 22 0 0 Am. Indian 9 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 31 5 3 6 7 9 0 0 2 25 0 0 Spanish Am, 43 7 4 9 8 10 0 0 2 25 0 0 Limited English

speaking ability

5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Migrant or Seasonal 9 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Farm Family Member

Veteran 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Handicapped 24 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Offender 43 7 9 19 14 18 3 27 5 28 0 0 Labor Force Status Underemployed 6 1 10 21 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 50 Unemployed

Other

70

569

1188

28

9 6019

24 30 67

10

1 829 14

4 78

22

10

50

0

113
-32 -

of the lower living standard as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics

(BLS). The Lansing Consortium's YEDPA data, depicted in Table 3, for the

second quarter of FY '78 also shows that the three intermediate school districta and City of Lansing Public School system, which are in charge of the

entire YETP program, are also working with students who meet DOL's economic

criteria. Eighty-four percent of these students are economically disadvantaged, and the families of 94 percent of the youth receive incomes below the

lower level income standard set by BLS. A further breakdown for the Lansing

Consortium of the participant mix with respect to the BLS income criteria

reveals that 75 percent of the YCCIP youth and 84 percent of the YETP students

are at or below 70 percent of the BLS lower living standard. Four percent

of the YETP program participants are handicapped, and 7 percent are youth

offenders. As in the case of the Grand Rapids Consortium, a high proportion

of the YCCIP program is male, and these youth are, not surprisingly, generally older than their counterparts in YETP. The in-school YETP programs in both

Consortia are working with a relatively small number of high school dropouts.

The validity of this client data is always a delicate question. As one

jaundiced CB0 veteran explained, "It's amazing how many kids have family

incomes that are five dollars below the income ceiling." But the three

prime sponsors appear to have taken the limited steps open to them to validate the data. GRAMPC uses its standard two step CETA verification procedure

in implementing YEDPA. Where the family is on AFDC, the contractor is instructed to contact the Michigan Department of Social Service (MOSS) office,

and obtain the AFDC case number and name of the case worker. Where the status

of a dependent is unclear because of a divorce or separation, tax returns must

be supplied by the parent. The income eligibility records are also completed
- 33 -

and maintained by individual program deliverers in the Lansing Consortium,

together with signed program applications attesting to the veracity of income

and other applicant information. If the Consortium doubts a participant's

eligibility, the contractor's interviewer or counselor serves as a link between the prime sponsor and the participant to verify eligibility. Such verification is usually sought by contacting parents or by requiring proof of

income, age, or other relevant demographic characteristics. Kalamazoo uses

the same records for determining and verifying eligibility for YEDPA that

it uses in the case of its summer program participants. MDSS verification

is sought, where applicable, and parent or guardian signatures are obtained

on an income verification worksheet.

All of the prime sponsors have zeroed in on various significant segments

of needy youth to the point where some contractors are expressing nervousness.

One executive complains that in his jurisdiction they are "overtargeted' with

the result that their limited assessment capability is swamped by the more

extensive intake entailed in establishing such eligibility. He also fears

the eventual impact on placement requirements. A contractor in another jurisdiction feels that, in spite of his intentions and reasonably effective administrative capability, DOL monitors will inevitably present him with a bill

for disallowed costs thanks to the stringency of the eligibility requirements.

A CB0 planner observes that "What parents make is no longer determining what

happens to the kids; drugs, crime, alcoholism, and lack of character are increasingly crossing class lines." Thanks to their extensive files of needy

youth, however, she worried about the youth who were ineligible but did not

doubt her agency's ability to meet the criteria, explaining "When we get funded

for a program, we simply draw out the individuals who fit the mold instead of

forcing the program to fit the individual."
-34-

Whatever the ambiguous feelings about identifying significant segments,

all of the prime sponsors have done so. The segments delineated by Kalamazoo,

and found in Table 4, are the economically disadvantaged, dropouts, and nonwhite participants. The discrepancies between planned and actual enrollments

of the YETP categories reflect the more advanced implementation of the YETP

out-of-school program at the end of the second quarter of FY '78. As identified in Table 5, the Grand Rapids Consortium has designated the economically

disadvantaged, dropouts, and non-white participants. In FY 1979, within the

City of Grand Rapids, the Consortium intends to involve the proportion of

young women, 43 percent, and minority group members, 23 percent, who are unemployed within the City.

Special preference in the Lansing Consortium YEDPA programs is being

given, as outlined in Table 6, to welfare recipients and dropouts. The work

statements in the YCCIP and YETP contracts and the LEA agreements *emphasize

that special consideration will be given to the recruitment and selection

of participants that fall within these categories. The proportion of dropouts present in both YETP and YCCIP significantly exceed initial planning

projections. The data submitted on the other two categories was incomplete,

but prime sponsor staffers were able to provide information on the economically disadvantaged segment drawn from a survey done in conjunction with their

knowledge development study. Approximately two-thirds of the YEDPA participants

can be classified as economicallydisadvantay.o. They were also found to lack

previous work experience and acceptable job habits as well as job search and

vocational skills.

CBO's seemed considerably more aware of their unique abilities to reach

out and woe,. with these significant segments than their program competitors,

but, more significantly, there has surfaced a much greater willingness to
TABLE 4

YETP and YCCIP Program Review Indicators for the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 1978 for

Kalamazoo County

Indicators

Total enrollments

1. Enrollments this year

a. New enrollments

h. Transfers from other titles

2. Participants carried over

B. Total terminations

1. Entering employment

a. Direct placements

b. Indirect placements

Obtained employment

2. Other Positive terminations

a. Transfers to other titles,

b. Returned to continue fulltime school

c. Other

3. Non-positive terminations

C. Total Participants enrolled (end of qtr.)

D. Obtained GED

El Received academic credit

11 A. Career employment experience

B. Transition services

C. On-the-job training

D. Classroom training

...LE.WorlJ2011121/L___

III Significant segments

A. Economically disadvantaged

B. Dropouts

C. Non-white participants

YETP YCCIP

Actual Plan % of Plan Actual Plan I of Plan

101 116 57 6 28 21

101 176 57 6 28 21 101 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

2 26 8 0 5 0

1 6 17 0 3 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 5 0 0 2 0

1 1 100 0 1 0

1 10 10 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 10 0 0 1 0

99 150 66 6 23 26

13 98 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

88 78 113 6 28 21

87 141 62 4 22 18 68 44 155 5 11 115 44 19 56 2 13 1`)
TABLE 5

YETP and YCCIP Program Review Indicators for the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 1978 for

Grand Rapids Consortium

Indicators

IA. Total enrollments

1. Enrollments this year

a. New enrollments

b. Transfers from other titles

2, Participants carried over

B. Total terminations

1. Entering employment

a, Direct placements

b. Indirect placements

c. Obtained employment

2, Other Positive terminations

a, Transfers to other titles

b. Returned to continue fulltime school

c. Other

3. Non-positive terminations

C. Total Participants enrolled (end of qtr.)

D. Obtained GED

E. Received academic credit

II

A. Career employment experience

B. Transition services

C. On-the-job training

D. Classroom training

E. WorkEperienee

Significant segments

A. Economically disadvantaged

B, Dropouts

L' Non-white participants

YETI' YCCIP

Actual Plan % of Plan Actual Plan % of Plan

741 864 853 27 59 45.8

741 864 85,8 27 59 45.8

381 0 27 0

360 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

70 76 92.1 1 1 14.3

14 16 87.5 0 3 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

1 5 20.0 0 2 0 13 11 118.2 0 1 0

10 12 83.3 1 0 0 0 1 0

10 0 0

0 0 0 0

46 48 95.8 0 4 0

671 788 85.1 26 52 50.0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

724 774 93.5 0 0 0

17 90 18,9 27 59 45.8

734 825 89.0 23 41 56,0

0

0 0

0

270

590

45,01' 0"
TABLE 6

YETP and YCCIP Program Review Indicators for the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 1918 for

Lansing Consortium

Indicators

Total enrollments

1. Enrollments this year

a. New enrollments

b. Transfers from other titles

2. Participants carried over

B. Total terminations

1. Entering employment

a. Direct placements

b. Indirect placements

c. Obtained employment

2. Other positive terminations

a. Transfers to other titles

b. Returned to continue fulltime school

c. Other

3. Non-positive terminations

C. Total Participants enrolled (end of qtr.)

D. Obtained GED

E. Received academic credit

A. Career employment experience

B, Transition services

C. On-the-job training

U, Classroom training

E. Work experience

Significant segments

A. Economically disadvantaged

B. Dropouts

C, Non-white participants

l'"J0

YETI' YCCIP

Actual Plan X of Plan Actual Plan 2 of Plan

645 624 103 41 41 115

645 624 103 41 41 115

568 0 0 45 0 0

77 0 0 2 0 0

0 0 100 0 0 100

80 92 81 11 4 275

18 34 53 2 1 200

9 0 0 0 0 100

8 34 24 2 1 200

1 0 0 0 0 100

43 42 102 3 0 0

1 0 0 3 0 0

41 0 0 0 0 100

1 0 0 0 0 100

19 16 119 6 3 200

565 532 106 36 37 97

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

565 624 91 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

41 50 82 0 0 0

0 0 0 47 41 115

0 0 0 0 0 0

40 235 17 30 21 143

0 0 0 0 0

wl.04.1

1A
- 38-

coexist and a greater recognition that in some parts of a particular jurisdiction a CB0 is the best service deliverer, in others it is not. Because

so many contractors, such as CBO's and schools. have extensive files of youth

seeking employment, no one has found it neoesi.ary to do much outreach to

locate eligible youth. CETA and non-CETA program files have contained many

names, and radio and TV advertisements am contact with community youth organizations have been occasionally utilizes. A comparison in the Lansing Consortium of CBO's and other program deiivcrers, as of the end of the FY '78

quarter, revealed virtually no differdnce in the proportion of economically

disadvantaged served.

V. CHANGING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWE7A IAVPOWER AN 7DUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

No institutional linkage would benefit disaC.J.ntaged youth more than a

closer tie between the Ichool system ronpower programs closely associated with the world of work. Even the fra.,;,rerLary client feedback currently

available points to several individuals whr have already benefited from a better relationship between education and mmr4ower. But the failure of some of

the prime sponsors to leave the IFIr starting gate more quickly must also be

attributed to the development () t:iese Local Education Agreements (LEA's).

The working relationship thk..t evolved between the Lansing Consortium and

the intermediary school districts and City of Lansing School District during

earlier Title I programminr enabled the Consortium to negotiate all of its LEA

agreements within 60 days of the YETP allocations. Whatever the social and

philrsophical significance of there agreements, it is scarcely divined by

perusal of the documents. Their format includes

stamiard contractual languav,e defining the Consortium's and the LEA's

responsibilities, a work statement spelling out the specifics of the program

to be delivered, and enrollment and budget schedules. The Grand Rapids Consortium also accomplished the signing of its agreements rapidly--a feat

1'181
-39-

explained perhaps partly by the virtually identical language of the several

agreements and warding that is close to the letter as well as the spirit of

the YEDPA regulations.

The failure of the Muskegon Consortium to begin its YETP program during

the second quarter of f". '78 rests squarely on the breakdown of LEA negotiations between the Cons.7,rtiu-T and the Muskegon Area Intermediate School

District (MAISD). After it initially appeared that a contract would be

signed, MAISD suddenly in mid-February withdrew. It appears that the major

reasons were 4.ts dissatisfaction with one of the participating CBO's, its

desire to run a larger proportion of the program than the prime sponsor

deemed appropriate, and its demand that the proposed central intake system

be dropped and each school allowed to do its own recruitment. Informal

negotiations with individual school districts and the prime sponsor then

ensued quickly, but the final contracts were not authorized by the prime

sponsor until April 10. The terms again closely followed the YEDPA guidelines, and included such items as work statements, significant segments,

the number of positive: and non-positive terminations, allowable activities,

management information system procedures, and program deadlines.

Kalamazoo decided to administer its YETP in-school program activities

through a single LEA, the Kalamazoo Valley Intermediate School District

(KVISD). The prime sponsor here has a single Employment Management Agency,

the private nonprofit Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, and it was thus the Institute that entered into the LEA agreement with the Youth Opportunities Unlimited Division of KVISD. Part of this written understanding

WAS that the "primary" LEA would then "enter into training agreements with

other LEA's for the purposes of delivering appropriate in-school services

as specified in the prime sponsor's plan for the YETP." Separate LEA agreements were subsequently written for in-school career employment experience,
-40-

out-of-school work experience, and the employment and training services program.

Unfortunately, however, the contract between YOU and the Upjohn Institute did

not differ significantly from earlier agreements reached by the two agencies in

emplementing Title I youth programs.

Where problems did occur in reaching agreement between these prime sponsors

and school systems, they were often detailed and procedural in nature. The

final issue standing between the prime sponsor and the Detroit Public School

system was disagreement over one staff salary Level, and the Board claimed

generally that union pressure compelled it to negotiate higher salaries for

its staff than counterparts were receiving elsewhere. Most of the other

minor disputes also involved, as one of the school administrators described

it, "trying to coordinate two systems each of which has developed its own

administrative practices." Negotiators' for the prime sponsor and the Detroit

Public Schools independently volunteered the view that both sides agreed on

common goals. But in a city as closely intertwined with federal grants as

Detroit, it must be recognized that YEDPA was not needed to introduce

7irginal educational bureaucrats to the joys of manpower programming and

funding. As one City of Detroit Manpower Department monitor put it, "The

Board of Education knew how much YEDPA money we were getting before we did."

Elsewhere, LEA agreements do seem to have increased school interest and

knowledge of YEDPA's potential. In the Grand Rapids Consortium, for example,

where nonfinancial agreements were signed at several levels this year, a refined process will be used next year. Intermediate school districts will be

relied upon in two outlying counties to serve as liaison between the prime

sponsor and a relatively large number of small school districts. Here too,

h owever, a distinction must be drawn between, on one hand, the outlying counties and the balance of Kent County, and, on the other, the City of Grand

Rapids where a number of the more powerful CBO's have long since established

1,1 r)tj
- 40a -

working relationships with the politically astute and progra- tally sound

Superintendent of the Grand Rapids Public School system.
- 41 -

Squaring the Schools' Academic Year with YEDPA's Fiscal Year. Perhaps

some would agree with one prime sponsor staffer who contended that "the

schools just adapt any planning cycle to theirs," but the evidence suggests

some problems that two planning cycles spaced a month apart do pose. Most

significantly, the federal fiscal year ends just 30 days after the schools'

academic year begins, but even that relatively small number of days means

that anyone who accepts a staff position with YEDPA is kissing off employment

until January at best and, more likely, the following September if and when

YEDPA, or simply the particular project, is terminated. The problem is

enhanced by the unwillingness of Congress to renew YEDPA for more than one

year at a time.

School systems have responded to this hiring problem compounded by the

uncertainty of YEDPA differently. Some are gambling that YEDPA will be

authorized again, and are making commitments extending at least through

January 1, anticipating that if' necessary, they will find the money

elsewhere. Others feel much less secure about such risks, and are making

no such calculations. "Why," asks one prime sponsor staff member, "should

the schools gamble for a few thousand on YEDPA coring through; it's not

worth it to them." Rather than hiring what in its view would be mediocre

personnel on such a temporary basis, one school system has simply expanded

the workload of its regular administrative staff, while another has juggled

its personnel already on soft money in such a way that such administrative

personnel are partially picked up under YEDPA. Sometimes schools have

either hired additional teachers and counselors or authorized subcontractors

to do so, but the school personnel generally have a strong preference for

the approach of their own counselors. They appear to have taken considerable

pains, -:11- possible, to have their counselors heavily involved in recruitment,

selection, ar.d advisory functions--and certainly in the granting of academic

credit.
-42-

The long lead time between completion of the school budget and curriculum

and the initiation of YEDPA planning has also caused concern. In Muskegon and

Kalamazoo, such planning is completed by March, and, as one staffer explained,

"By the time we drop the RFP on them in the late spring, all hell is breaking

loose for the schools what with graduation, closing down for the summer, and

vacations." There is hope that this problem can be offset in Muskegon by

working with Adult Education personnel, but there is also concern that some

public schools expressing interest may not be able to begin until January

1979.

The Procedure for Awarding of Academic Credit in Michigan. The quality

and acceptability of the planning process is particularly critical to YEDPA's

success in Michigan, because the local school systems have such complete

control over the vital issue of whether academic credit should be granted

for competencies gained from work experience. Ms. Michelyn Pasteur and Mr.

Gus Breymann of the Grand Rapids Consortium staff researched with some care

the conditions surrounding the awarding of such credit, and distributed an

extensive memorandum to the contractors outlining the status of such policy

at the state and local levels. Based on information obtained from the North

Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, the Michigan School

Code of 1976, and from discussion with representatives of the Michigan Department of Education and school administrators in the Grand Rapids area, they

found that specific State policies and guidelines for awarding for work

experience, as such, do not exist, although there are State guidelines for

cooperative education. The North Central Association only stipulates that

any work experience done outside the school must be done under the direct

supervision of the school and approved by it. Nor does the isociation prescribe a minimum, optimum, or maximum number of units of credit that should

be awarded. For practical purposes, the maximum number of such credits is
-43-

limited by the number of units which must be reserved for those traditional

academic courses required for high school graduation.

The Michigan School Code, a comprehensive consolidation of laws dealing

with elementary and secondary education in the State, is helpful only insofar

as it delegates responsibility for determining the courses of study to be pursued to local school boards. This substantial degree of local discretion has

yielded, according to local administrators, a wide range of provisions for

awarding credit for work experience. There is considerable variation in the

definition of a "unit" of credit and in the required duration of the work

experience.

With respect to the validation of work experience, none of the jurisdictions in the Grand Rapids metropolitan area appear to require any type of

formalized testing or assessment at the end of awork.experience to determine

whether specific competencies have been gained. Rather, the primary method

of "validation" is a standard form which an employer signs at the completion

of the required period of work experience. Generally, the form asks the

employer to use such subjective indications as "excellent," "good," or "fair"

to describe the quality of the participants' performance. Additionally, there

are frequently no gLidelines to correlate those subjective measurements with

the amount of credit to be given. Conspicuous in its absence is an objective

method of third-party validation of work experienc' which assures that all

learners are treated equitably and which avoids charges of "worthless cedentialism." A blanket awarding of credit is most common with little assessment of learning that took place as a result of work experience.

Arranging for Academic Credit Under YETP and YCCIP. In light of these

decisions and hondecisions In the status of work experience in Michigan, it is

not surprising that so little of the work experience performed so far under

YEDPA, and discussed earlier, has been validated. Provision of academic
- 44 -

credit for YCCIP and YETP program participation or for competencies derived

from such participation is emphasized in the Lansing Consortium's contracts

with subgrantees and LEA agreements. In most instances, both in YCCIP and

YETP in-school programs, academic credit is arranged through the local

schools. While the intermediate school districts are handling most of Lansing's

YEDPA programs, therefore, the only program deliverer that has established a uniform procedure for granting academic credit to YETP participants is the one school district, the Lansing School District (La), directly involved in the

program. In the LSD program, participants typically receive two credits for

satisfactory completion of work experience and the career information seminar;

students may recoive one additional credit for remedial course work that

relates to an individual's work objective. These standards were determined

and approved by the LSD Director of Secondary Education. Once approved, they

were assigned a course number, and incorporated into the school curriculum.

The three intermediate school districts have established policies for granting academic credit for participation in career information seminars, but have

a less sharply defined policy for providing credit for work experience.

The two Lansing YETP out-of-school programs, not covered under the LEA

agreements, pr-vide classroom training and thus academic credit for program

completion. The private Merrill Fashion Institute certifies participants

for completion of its classroom training programs in fashion design, retailing, and merchandising. Students can receive certification for remedial

classroom training completed through Lansing Community College or through

LSD's Adult and Continuing Education program to which youth are referred by

the Youth Development Corporation's Reading and C,reer Development out-ofschool YETP program.

Detroit LEA's can arrange academic credit for youth in any program up

to a total of 15 credits, but due to YEDPA's late start there, it is unclear
- 45 -

whether the gren,:ing of credit for YETP will materialize. No academic credit

is provided -o youth this year within the jurisdictions of Kalamazoo County or the Lansing Consortium. For next year KVISD's Youth Opportunities Unlimited Division is spearheading an effort to arrange such credit in

Kalamazoo, and the Muskegon Consortium is arranging indepeldent study credit.

The Grand Rapids Consortium has laid out four general guidelines for its contractors to be achieved over time: 1. Wherever possible, third-party validation of work experience should be based on a formal assessment of competencies

gained through such activity; 2. Existing accrediting agencies which have the

experience, the organization, the standing, and the acceptance of the academic

community should be used; 3. Standards and validation procedures for non- traditional learning should be no less and no more stringent than for traditional education; and 4. Procedures and policies should avoid sex role stereotyping in selection of types of work experience and decisions concerning the

awarding of credit.

School Involvement At and Beyond the Mandated 22 Percent YEDPA Level.

The mixed emotions with which schools view further involvement with their

dropouts is reflected in the YEDPA experience. In the Grand Rapids Consortium, approximately 49 percent of the YETP allocation is to

be expended for in-school programs. All of those funds are included in the LEA

agreements, and all are spent on present students. CBO's handle the dropouts in out-of-school programs. The Muskegon Consortium's stipulation

that all contractors take a required proportion of dropouts has met with

acceptance from LEA's, perhaps because the CBO's have committed themselves

in principle to moving youth back into school. The main CBO is plugging

youth into a regular summer school program, while another school is taking

the dropouts into its Adult Education Program. A positive placement goal

is to enroll youth by September in high school completion programs. In
-46-

Kalamazoo funds within the LEA agreement serve in-school students. YEDPA programs run by the schools beyond the 22 percent allocation also serve their own

students, although during the summer there may be some overlap of in-school

and out-of-school youth. "Once he's out of the system," explained a CEO

veteran, "the schools feel that he's not their problem anymore."

The Relation of the Schools to YETP Under the LEA Agreements. The extent

to which schools are expanding their cooperative/distributive education programs under LEA agreements, thus far, is limited. YETP services are aimed at

helping participants identify career goals and interests, and co-op programs

provide a meaningful alternative after identification is made. With

increased enrollments due to the successful provision of services, co-op programs in Lansing are expanding; the impact, however, so far is minimal. Many

YETP in-school program deliverers hope that more youth can be directed toward

co-op programs after receiving YETP services and participating in work experience; therefore, the largest expansion and impact should occur during the Fall

semesters. With the expansion of cooperative/distribution education programs,

more economically disadvantaged youth are expected to participate, ana more

numerous and varied program areas are expected to emerge in the face of this

demand. This pattern has occurred in the case of other co-op programs, but

for the moment, the long-term relationship of YETP and co-op programs is

uncertain.

In the Grand Rapids Consortium the co-op and YETP programs remain

separate, but the GRPS in recent years has expanded participation of

economically disadvantaged youth in response to other program pressures.

In Kalamazoo co-op programs are serving economically disadvantaged youth

for the first time, where they can meet the eligibility requirements, but

those requirements remain unchanged. The expansion in the Kalamazoo schools

has occurred in the same program areas, although it has involved some shifts

1&O
-47 -

in administrative responsibility. Given the limited attention generally paid

by the schools to economically disadvantaged youth, these Michigan prime sponsors are, therefore, definitely providing these youth with hitherto unavailable access to learn outside of the classroom. Furthermore, the work experience openings represent opportunities for youth to be evaluated on the basis

of job as well as academic performance.

The Relation of Post-Secondary Institutions to YETP. The decision of

these five Michigan prime sponsors to focus so heavily on economically disadvantaged youth has reduced the need to establish linkages with post-secondary institutions at this early stage in YETP's development. Michigan's community colleges, though, have moved with increasing speed into manpower programming, and several are involved in CETA Title I activities. The Muskegon

Consortium is writing the community colleges in its area into its FY '79 YETP

plan. Muskegon wants to have an employability plan and a training plan written

for each individual that will include high school graduation and extend into

post-secondary intentions.

The main link in Lansing is through referrals of YETP participants upon

graduation to post-secondary institutions after YETP activities and services

have helped them to identify career pals and interests- Such an instance

occurred in the Ingham Intermediate School District program. Two YETP youth

identified aviation mechanics as their career interest and were placed in

work experience slots at the local metropolitan airport where they were exposed

to an aviation mechanic program run by Lansing Community College (LCC). Both

students plan to enroll in LCC's program after graduation from high school

this year.

The Relation of the Unions and the Private Sector to YEDPA. YETP and

YCCIP provide considerably more flexibility to prime sponsors for negotiating

with LEA's, the unions, and the private sector. In the case of the LEA agree-
-48-

meats, these Michigan prime sponsors in some cases, such as Lansing, merely followed their normal CETA contract format, but others viewed the absence of extensive restrictions as most helpful, since YEDPA represented what one termed "a

buyer's market." Another pointed to the advantage of having the freedom to draw

on the whole gamut of winter and sumi.er school programs in negotiating the LEA

agreements.

Prime sponsor staffers saw far less flexibility in their involvement with

the private sector, and were frankly pessimistic that their efforts in designing YETP work experiences would actually lead to unsubsidized jobs. 'We give

the participants work experience and job skills," complained one contractor,

"but we're still training them to stay at the public trough." Some of the

contractors, though, are utilizing a few OJT slots and in 1979 intend to

include a vocational exploration component that involves the private sector.

Neither in their public nor private work experience efforts, however, have

any of these Michigan prime sponsors required job restructuring or reclassification.

While prime sponsors have cleared their activities with unions, none have

worked out agreements wish them. With one glaring exception the unions have

raised no objections to YEDPA activities, and appear generally unaware and

uninterested in its progress. The exception occurred in the case of the Kalamazoo Public School (KPS) system where the school's AFSCME union protested that

KPS was attempting to insert YEDPA youth into positions that would enable them

to substitute for union personnel scheduled to be laid off in September. This

large YCCIP project was immediately cancelled by KPS. The school system was

not about to delve snore deeply into an issue that pittet its long-term union

relations against the short-term benefits of a few YCCIP slots. When questioned at a Youth Services Committee meeting, the contractor made clear that

he would not crowd KPS on the matter, explaining that "the programs are guests

1 %.)

ks) 14.0
-49-

in the school systems and the schools cannot be forced to accept and implement

projects."

Improving the Quality and Availability of Occupational Information for

Youth. Increasing the quantity and quality of occupational information available to youth is an important part of the YEDPA strategy. The State of Michigan considerably aided these prime sponsors in achl.eving this objective, since

it had already received a grant to develop a Michigan OccpatIonal Information

System (MOIS). The objectives of the program are:

...to help students learn about career opportunities; helc , grants

into the labor force become awfr acceptable occupi4t1.7, lotivate

students and others to seek out ational inforamtion; in,

awareness of major sources of ocfvoatIonal information; ,:!nu support for related programs, includ,. 7. career educatio ald ,;- ment counseling.

It is too early in the implementaticu c q7DPA to determine hnw eff active

MOIS is in assisting youth in obtaining cAs :lformation, but several of the

prime sponsors point to the system as a source upon which they intend to draw,

and, particularly since the Michigan Department of Education is the administrative agent for MOIS, the LEA's are well positioned to learn about and utilize

its information. The ':ity of Detroit Manpower Department has indicated its

intention not only to bring the system's existence to the attention of its

YEDPA youth but also to instan. A ':omputer terminal in one of its youth

centers. While the rrime srsors and contractors generally seem content to

rely on MOIS, the '...arsing Consortium is requiring all L::'s, as a transition

service, to provide career information seminars or workshops to all participants on a weekly basis. This contracto.;i obligation Ls included as :Jett of

the career employment experiene program.

Some prime sponsors have complained about the poor quality of the vyailable occupational films and materials that are, as one flatract officer put

it, "outdated in style even if not in substance." In a cour:.e of cases the
-50-

prime sponsors have refused to work with me Michigan Emplo:. 2nc Security Com-

(MESC), explaining that many of its projections, baszo on 1970 census

data, by now have become inaccurate.

VI. THE SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE AGENCiES TO DELIVER SERVICES

The drafters of YEDPA left little doubt in the legislation that they

wanted CBO's to play an active rolt in implementing YET? and YCCIP, and all

five Michigan prime sponsors have followed through on that commitment. A

comparison in the Lansing Consortium bL.tween the participation of CBO's and

other organizations in Titles I and III youth programming in FY '78 shows

that 00 involvement decreased sharply Lader YEDPA. CBO's received 66 pircent of the funds allocated under Title I youth programs dnd served 60 percent of the youth, while in Title UT youth programs, CBO's received 27 percent of the funds and worked with 21 perce:.c of the youth during the early

months of 1978. That reduction is directly atrributable to the substantial

involvement of the LEA's in YETP where they received the bulk of 84 percent

of the funds and had most of the 80 percent of -he e'ents not served by

CBO's. In YCCIP, the CBO's actually received a higher proportion of the

funds and clients in comparison with other organiucions than unde: 'isle

I, as they were allocated 80 percent of the faLLay had 83 percent of the

youth in their programs. Muskegon's CBO'b are aiso more heavily eng.lged in

YCCIP than YETP projects.

Elsewhere, several of the large contractors from Title I youth progt ...- ming were CBO's, and, therefore, a natural choice anyway to play a large role

in YEDPA. The primary youth contractor in Kalamazoo's YEA-A programs has

remained heavily involved in manpower programs since OETA's incep i.vn, but

the increased emphasis on youth has also attracted to a limited .!xtent organizations not previously involved such as the Boy Scouts, Boy; Club, and
- 51 -

Operation Turnaround. The Grand Rapids Consortium has utilized four CBO's

and two LEA's--all of whom were engaged in previous CETA activities as well.

In Muskegon, one CBO, the Opportunities Industrialization Center, is handling

central intake for the entire YEDPA system and running a YCCIP project, while

another, the Urban Opportunity Development Taam (UODT), has one of the smallest

and most innovative YETP programs. One of the larger CBO's in Detroit

expressed the view that YEDPA has led to more CBO involvement under YEDPA

than occurred under previous CETA activities.

While the nature of CBO prior involvement in the manpower game has varied,

all of the major CBO's utilized in these five Michigan prime sponsor areas have

worked in CETA Title I programs or earlier federally supported youth programs.

OIC and UODT in Muskegon previously dealt prImarily with youth dropouts, but

they have also worked in other CETA programs too, and understand the reporting

procedures and requir cents. The youth area is new for Detroit's GOIC, but it

has done extensive adult manpower training. Any meaningful determination of

CBO program performance after only one quarter of program operations, however,

would be premature.

CBO and Non-CBO Involvement in Reaching Disadvantaged Youth. Considerable

time has elapsed since the federal government began to pressure CBO and non-CBO

agencies to reach out to more disadvantaged persons and to deliver services

more effectively to them. The relationship of prime sponsors and other organizations to CBO's and non-CBO's in these five Mf.chigan prime sponsors suggests

that there is no neat formula to differentiate which organizations deliver

such services on target under what conditions. :n the Grand Rapids Consortium's

jurisdiction, for example, the main CBO in Grand Rapids, Kent-CAP, has developed

a relatively smooth relationship with the local Michigan Employment Security

Commission (MESC) office, while in ore of the other three counties, MESC enjoys

less of a reputation, and YEDPA recruitment is handled by another, large CBO.
-52-

Grand Rapids Public Schools, thanks partly to a long-standing and highly

regarded Neighborhood Youth Corps program, and Kent-CAP have performed the

entire intake function in Grand Rapids, and in view of the high proportion

of disadvantaged youth, both have demoritrated r capability identify needy

youth. In Kalamazoo the CBO's are sviving virtually the same population with

whom they work elsewhere in CETA. Exclusive reliance on the minimum wage in

Kalamazoo and throughout Michigan in filling YEDPA positions has also facilitated the decision by prime sponsors to work with disadvantaged youth.

While such rates are attractive to middle as well as lower class youth, there

are not the considerable differences in wage rates that attract so much more

skilled and educated members of the labor force that one finds in some CETA

public service employment projects.

The degree of coordination between CBO's and non-CBO's ranges from the

relatively autonomous programs in Detroit, where the CBO's tend to be more

self-contained, to the highly coordinated and centralized systems found in

Kalamazoo and Muskegon where in each case a single CB0 plays a large and

critical role, and coordinates closely with the non-CBO's who perform other

functions within the system. In Muskegon UODT also has developed a working

relationship with the LEA's, as it plugs its YETP participants periodically

into high school completion components, and in turn receives the names of

dropouts drawn from school files. CBO''.4 in the Lansing Consortium utilize

their own self-contained service components f., such functions as outreach,

testing, and placement, although they hale utilized MESC and out-county CETA

coordination offices in implementing YCCIP. Two Urban League agencies in

Muskegon and Lansing are the only CBO's conspicuously absent from YEDPA

implementation in those jurisdictions. The Muskegon Chapter is concentrating on its
- 53 -

other CETA commitments, while the Lansing Chapter only decided in January

1978 to again serve minority youth with employment programs after previously

choosing to focus on other substantive areas.

While CB0 and non-C80 organizations are attracting a needy population

into YEDPA, and to some extent are drawing from the same pool of applicants,

CB0 executives may be correct in contending that they are working with more

economically disadvantaged clients. This circumstance is dictated in part

by the nature of the programs with which they are most closely affiliated.

The LEA's have asserted leadership in t',e YETP in-school programs, while

the CBO's more often are found working with the out-of-school youth and

with those YCCIP projects active in the inner city. As one CB0 administrator

put it, "By being in the neighborhoods, we get the poor folks."

VII. COORDINATION OF YOUTH SERVICES

No single contractor is in a position to deliver all of the training, services, and employment and work experience options available to youth under

YEDPA. Hence, coordination of such activities becomes critical to YEDPA's

success. Contractors and prime sponsors have responded to YEDPA's ztringent

guidelines designed to achieve this end more quickly than they have to those

steps where the penalties for noncomrliance are less apparent.

Rational social planning by the prime sponsors would seem to require identification of all local resources that could be utilized in support of YEDPA.

To that end, DOL encouraged initially the development and subsequently the

updating of youth service inventories for identifying services and programs

that could be realistically meshed with those of YEDPA to serve youth.

Kalamazoo did accumulate what it eventually termed a "partial" Community

Resources Inventory by surveying agencies known to be engaged in providing

youth employment and training services and by consulting secondary sources on general community services. Detroit has also hired a consultant to pre-
- 54 -

pare such an inventory, but the Grand Rapids, Lansing, and Muskegon Consortia

have not shown any inclination to develop such information. Even where it

exists, the prime sponsors do not appear to utilize it, arguing that they

already know who major contractors are. Furthermore, it is difficult for

prime sponsors to recruit and familiarize the less experienced contractors

that such an inventory would uncover with CETA procedures, and the YEDPA

guidelines encourage the use of CBO's already experienced in manpower programs.

Utilizing Services Available At No Cost From Manpower-Related Agencies.

Agencies have established relatively few nonfinancial service agreements in

carrying out YEDPA. Existing agreements within the jurisdiction of the Lansing Consortium tend to be informal, and often consist of agency referrals

for those services not provided by the agency charged directly with implementing a particular YETP or YCCIP program. In Kalamazoo County there is a

somewhat stronger linkage between MESC and the primary youth contractor, YOU,

because those two organizations already have established a sound working :elationship. The Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, as in the case of

other CETA programs, utilizes MESC to supplement the prime subcontractor (YOU)

for counseling and job placement. Muskegon's Urban League, even though it is

not directly involved in YEDPA, is writing the OJT contracts for UODT, the CBO

coordinating many of the YEDPA services. UODT is also using the Muskegon

Heights Summer School program in conjunction with its summer YEDPA programs,

and the Reeths Puffer School System has made a nonfinancial agreement with

Whitehall School District to allow Whitehall's students to enter its YETP program. Within Grand Rapids and the remainder of Kent County, MESC has informal

agreements to refer youth to contractors; that activity may become part of a

formal nonfinancial agreement to be signed with MESC at the end of this program

year or the beginning of the next.
-55-

YEDPA has in some cases extended the range of cooperation developed in

earlier CETA programs, and it is such expansion, rather than the development

of new administrative and programmatic linkages, that typifies relations among

these Michigan prime sponsors and contractors. The Lansing Consortium is

coordinating the services provided by MESC, area CBO's and LEA's, and the

various contractors are encouraged to convey information on available services

to youth participants to aid them in obtaining unsubsidized employment, other

employment services, other CETA program placement, further skill or academic

training, and other supportive services. The linkage in Kalamazoo County

between MDSS and school district counselors is an integral part of the program, and resulted from YEDPA. The schools and CBO's identify applicants, and

MDSS assists in placement. The Muskegon Consortium drew on the services of

the local Hartman Institute in developing and administering its Hartman and

Rokeach value tests to YEDPA youth during a coordinated and expanded intake

process.

The extent to which agencies are donating in-kind contributions and

services to YEDPA at no cost is difficult to measure, but it is occurring,

and is another manifestation of the increasing coordination found among youth

programs within these jurisdictions. In the case of the LEA's, such assistance is particularly difficult to determine in the case of YETP, since the

schools work with students on their own premises, where films, library books,

paper, clips, and other materials are readily available. The heavy involvement of the LEA's in several jurisdictions increases the likelihood that such

donations are being made. LEA's, for example, constitute four out of the

five YETP contractors funded for services i. the Muskegon Consortium, and

account for a substantial degree of activity in Kalamazoo and Lansing too.

Table 7 summarizes the in-kind conttibutfons and services provided by CBO's

and LEA's ,o the Lansing Consorti'nn At no cost.
TABLE 7

In-Kind and Service Contributions Provided by Contractors and Other Organizations

Under CETA Title III Youth Programs Within the Lansing Consortium, 1978

Program Deliverer and Project Resource Contributions

YCCIP

Capital Area Community Services

YCCIP Weatherization Project

Community Resource Volunteers

CRV/YCCIP Project

DeWitt Public Schools

Citizens for Ecology

Youth Development Corporation

Youths at Work in Pubiic Parks

YETP: Out-of-School

Merrill Fashion Institute

Job Readiness Program,

Retail/Merchandising

Youth Development Corporation

Reading and Career Development

Program

YETP: In-Sc%ool

Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham County

Intermediate School Districts

City of Lansing School District

Materials with which participants

work are funded by the Community

Services Administration through

its Bureau of Community Services

and the U.S. Department of Energy

Materials for projects donated by

local schools, city councils,

chambers of commerce, and civic

organizations

Materials provided by DeWitt Public Schools

Materials donated by the City of

Lansing

Administration of such functions

as testing, interviewing, screening, counseling, and placement',

and the provision of rental space

for administration

Administrative, counseling, and

secretarial services

Administrative Services, particularly such transition services as

counseling and placement
- 57 -

YCCIP and YETP and Summer Program Planning. The YEDPA emphasis on coordinating winter and summer youth programming dovetails neatly with the direction

in which prime sponsors were already moving so that it is difficult to gauge

the legislation's impact. In some cases, however, administrative cr programmatic linkages car be readily seen. Detroit has encountered sub,tantial difficulties in implementing its large Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project

(YIEPP) and recruiting the requisite number of youth, so the prime sponsor is

devoting its major energies to putting YIEPP and the Summer Program for

Economically Disadvantaged Youth (SPEDY) in place. It has given little thought

to integrating the contractors and their YETP and YCCI? programs with these

other summer program activities. The components of SPEDY are similar to last

year, as Detroit has focused on improving the program's monitoring in accord

with the mayor's Amphasis on tightening generally the system's implementation

procedures. YEDPA did, however, influence SPEDY's linkages with other agencies.

While such relationships previously existed on paper, Detroit has more actively

pursued such administrative arrangements in accord with the new guidelines.

Like the other four prime sponsors, Detroit has encountered little difficulty

in traritioning youth from winter to summer employment-related activities

either programmatically or administratively.

The Lansing Consortitip's SPEDY program design is mote similar to YETP

than YCCIP, but will involve youth from both programs. The same LEA's running YETP will also administer the SPEDY program with essentially the same

staff. Where the youth is concurrently enrolled in YETP, YCCIP, or Title I

and a summer program, emphasis will be placed on providing continuity in the

amnlovment and training services that the youth receives. Transfer of such

students will involve completion of a program status change form. and many

Youth are expected to remain at the YET? or Title I work site where they

were located during the school year.
- 58-

In the Muskegon area. the Consortium encountered some difficulty in

establishing its linkages and coordinating its program components. The

competition among several youth programs to place applicants aggravated this

problem. The relatively small but legally significant differences in eligibility requirements also in some cases posed a problem. For Fiscal Year

1979, however, the prime sponsor has started to lay the groundwork for a

coordinated, twelve month program. Kalamazoo has essentially stayed with

a well-accepted summer program, and concentrated on identifying the

mechanisms that can be utilized in transitioning youth from summer employ -

ment to school and the types of program linkages that such mechanisms woul:'

require.

The Grand Rapids Consortium has begun to implement its FY '79 youth

planning. The prime sponsor released a sincle. consolidated Request for

Proposals.(RFP) for YETP. YCCIP. and SPEDY. The RFP was designed in

modules so that contractors could apply for any one or all three of the

components. Upon receiving the applications in June, GRAMPC would then integrate them into a comprehensive delivery system. In adopting this system,

GRAMPC assumed that re-enactment of CETA would require the Consortium

to place e..nomically disadvantaged youth in all of the slots and that the

funding formulas would remain unchanged. As in Lansing, the YETP model

predominates in the FY '7§ planning and programming, and the scope and

impact of YCCIP seem unlikely to grow proportionally.

VIII. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING YEDPA'S FUTURE

This second preliminary report is written at what is still a relatively

early stage in YEDPA's development. The following initial reactions and preliminary recommendations are, therefore, intended primarily to raise questions

for_c.cpsideration, as the legislation's future is contemplated.
- 59 -

Judging the impact of a single Act on the overall CETA system is complicated by the wave of other legislative and administrative demands that, while

often unrelated to YEDPA, still ha'ie cascaded down on the prime sponsors during the last eighteen months. Furthermore, while YEDPA is viewed favorably

by many local prime sponsor staffers and contractors, it is yet another source of interference, as they strive to improve their systems and the processes by

which they deliver services. This struggle between national goal setting and

local agendas may be seen in the reaction to YEDPA of a prime sponsor executive:

We're able to make some improvements in the system. We go along with

regulations to the extent that we have too--in terms of who we are going to serve, how we are going to serve them, how much money we will

spend on them, how much will go for administrative costs... But the

real answer in terms of the program is the process. Our overall goal

is presumably one of two things. We either get them to return to

school or find them a job. Everything we do should lead to one of

those two ands in terms of vocational training, career awareness,

counseling, and the rest, and I think it does already. Every year we

improve. Our counselors become more knowledgeable; we may work with

a school system we did not work with before; we may reach more kids.

Given this perspective and the semiautonomy that characterizes the CETA

legislation, there are numerous impediments that could undercut YEDPA.

Therefore, while it is premature to predict how much would remain if YEDPA

were discontinued, local receptivity to some of the Act's more ambitious initiatives is encouraging. A number of contractors and prime sponsor staffers

have demonstrated consiuerable attraction to a quest like knowledge development

designed to improve program quality. Emphasis on developing a type of work

experience that is not simply income maintenance but will also direct and

enhance the future employability and employment of youth through career employment experience has been well received. Several local decision makers have in

addition expressed their determination to improv _he quality of the work

sites and of supervision whether through YEDPA or some other vehicle. Prime
-60-

sponsors are worried that the phasing out of youth programs might jeopardize

the progress made in working with a larger number of LEA's by making it

fiscally and administratively infeasible to operate area in-school youth programs from such a decentralized base; however, in at least two of the prime

sponsor areas YEDPA has opened the eyes of LEA's to hitherto unrecognized

possibilities in linking education and employment, and a change in federal

policy seems more likely to alter than to obliterate these new linkages.

In two of the prime sponsor jurisdictions, school task forces are seriously

reconsidering their policy on granting academic credit for work experience,

and that effort seems likely to have a lasting effect regardless of YEDPA's

fate.

The youth councils enjoy a far less certain future. Whether because or

in spite of local prime sponsor efforts, the councils have not demonstrated

the ability to make effective decisions. Prime sponsors and public officials

have also exhibited less confidence generally in the utility of the YCCIP

project approach for combating youth unemployment than they have in YETP. As

for targeting the services, in the absence of federal pressure, these prime

sponsors would probably continue for the most part to serve eccr,omically

disadvantaged youth, but they would also serve a number of your. ..-ho are

above the. Lower Living Standard established by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Several steps could be taken at this point that would strengthen YEDPA

now and for the year ahead:

1. The disadvantaged youth served by YEDPA remain unemployed in large

numbers even when the economy is functioning well. Programs designed to serve

a group suffering from such severe structural unemployment should be planned

well ahead. We are paying a high price in program quality for authorizing

YEDPA one year at a time on the dubious logic that YETP aad YCCIP constitute
- 61-

serious parts of a federal countercyclical economic policy to be unleashed

only in hard times. Title VI is better suited to such a purpose.

Programs designed to combat youth unemployment should be author..ced

and receive appropriations on a rolling two year basis, and should

be categorized as strategies designed exclusively to cope with structural unemployment.

2. With the exception of the usual horror stories in the press concerning

administrative reorganization, there !s a virtual absence of news clippings or

other media attention concerning YEDPA. What YETP and YCCIP are and how they

are doing remain much better kept secrets in these five Michigan prime sponsor

areas than our NATO troop alignment. It is disturbing to think that the legislation may be achieving a desirable impact, and still fail for lack of support,

because the great majority of Americans have never heard of it.

The public relations arm of the Department of Labor should provide

prime sponsors with publicity on youth employment problems and programs that they could adapt and embellish for local media consumption.

3. The knowledge development thrust in YEDPA met with a positive local

rc3ponse partly because of the growing interest among prime sponsors and contractors in program evaluation. There appears to be restlessness among the

more experienced local practitioners over the tendency to throw program after

program into the field and thereby drive out time that might be devoted to

feedback and follow-up. If we can contrive to debrief animals that we send

into outer space, then we should be able, particularly in a piece of experimental legislation, to arrange for a post-project period for discussion of

program findings. Some of these prime sponsor stajfers and contractors are

on the cutting edge of YEDPA's youth employment experiments, and they should

play a major role in such a debriefing exercise. This program evaluation

stage should be built into the program implementation process.

The Department of Labor should arrange semi-structured meetings on

a substate regional basis where DOL representatives, prime sponsors,

and contractors identified by their prime sponsor or DOL Regional

office come together. Here they would compare experi,mces, and disseminate documentation conveying what they have learned.

.1).- 1-10
-62-

4. The City of Detroit Manpower Depatment's decision co link a YETP

orientation course to its more lengthy and costly Allied Health Careers CETA

classes raises some interesting and largely unexplored program possibilities.

It is certainly legal for prime sponsors to request that youth gain some

exposure to alternative CETA training possibilities, and to measure their

aptitudes for pursuing such careers, but rarely did these five Michigan

prime sponsors develop such linkages. It would seem that under some circumstances such orientations might constitute prerequisites for difficult CETA

training programs that now possess high dropout rates.

Prime sponsors should be encouraged to link YEDPA orientation sessions rot only to high school graduation but also co a number of

other manpower training programs.

5. Not only the lengthy public school planning cycle but also regular

school policies and procedures often have limited LEA participation in YEDPA.

Research should be conducted in the schools that would identify those standard

operating procedures designed for the hiring of permanent personnel and the

implementation of regular curriculum changes that constitute barriers to developing an effective interface with short-term manpower programs. The schools

are increasingly recognizing that the ad hoc nature of this programming can

provide them with a flexible set of training alternatives; in some cases the

impediments to such coordination are now procedural rather than philosophical.

DOL and HEW should undertake research to identify th . . .v.edural

barriers within the schools to the development of ar .ective

interface between educational and manpower program:. )dels

should then be disseminated recommemling alternative tool bys7

tem procedures designed to accommodate the ad hoc nature of man--

power planning and programming.
Implementation of the Youth Employment and

Demonstration Projects Act of 1977 (YEDPA)

by Four Georgia Prime Sponsors
Second Interim Report to the National Council on Employment Policy

on the Implementation of the Youth Employment and

Demonstration Projects Act of 1977 (YEDPA)

by Four Georgia Prime Sponsors

by: Gretchen E. Maclachlan

with the assistance of: Coatsey Ellison*

May 1978

In the four Georgia prime sponsors, Atlanta, Cobb, and

DeKalb Counties, and the Northeast Area of Georgia BOS, all YETP

and YCCIP programs are now in operation although delays were

characteristic. At the writing of the first interim report Cobb

County had not completed the application and approval phase although commitment to a youth program had been resolved. Their

program became a reality in early March. In-school programs in

all sponsorships were in place, though barely in some, by the final

school-year quarter which began the first week of March. One YCCIP

project, ghat of DeKalb County, did not begin until April. Full

proriram capacity has been reached in most components. As the program has progressed the response to the youth charterprinciples

has varied from indifference to acute sensitivity.

I. Knowledge Development

Atlanta's planned approach to knowledge development was experimenting with a variety of programmatic activities, rather than

one approach as was the case with two primes, Cobb and NE Georgia.

*A Clark College student whc conducted and compiled youth interviews.
2 The five program approaches are the in-school work experience, career

exploration and work exposure, specialized job development and

and placement, OJT, and innovative programs. Additionally

for the first time the Atlanta program established its own

intake and referral component. Their YETP grant states that

they want to answer "'what works best for whom under what con

ditions." Yet the grant also states that YEDPA was "enacted

(in part) as a job creation component of the Administration's

economic stimulus package." The Deputy Director of Atlanta's

CETA Office, Wynn Montgomery, candidly admits that the original

program design was partly a numbers game--to establish many

slots for youth and try a variety of approaches. This indicates

both a recognition of the experimental/demonstration goals of

the program and the economic imperative of reaching many youth.

As the program has developed Montgomery allows that an overall

design with fewer approaches and greater investment per slot

would have permitted more informed knowledge development in

terms of "what works." Althot'gh the program is only mid-way he

feels that OJT for youth definitely has not proven successful,

inspite of the sub-contractor's (OIC) concerted efforts.

The Atlanta program implicitly has built-in the capacity

of making comparisons between YETP components and other CETA

programs. The in-school YETP work-experience is comparable to

the only specific youth activity under Title I, an in-school

work experience component.

In terms of the employability of youth comparison could be

made from Employment Service records for those in career explora-
tion and those who seek ES service wiLhout any previous program

participation. However, no provisions are being made to

execute these activities or any other knowledge development

activities at this point. This is not because of any lack of

recognition of their importance but because of scarce resources.

The planning, evaluation, and research capabilities of the

Atlanta program are not much larger than when the program was

of lesser magnitude. There are two official planners, though

more people are actu-lly doing planning activities. But the

thrust of their activities has been applying for several YEDPA

demonstration program grants. These planners' energies are devoted to bidding For every available funding dollar, an unwritten

policy objective of the program and the City administration.

Though Atlanta did not receive an Entitlement grant, that competition dominated the planning phase for YEDPA and now application

for three other grants has obviated using qualified professionals

for research and evaluation.

The Cobb County Manpower Planning Office perceives knowledge development very much as controlled experimentation. This

is how it is portrayed in the grant application. as well as in

person. When knowledge development was explained as including

more than controlled experiments the planning staff was surprised.

Their entire YETP program is in some sense an experiment, albeit

not one with comparisons between control and experimental groups.

The approach and the delivery agent are new to the area. Oak

Ridge Associated Universities has established a subsidiary, the

Industrial Technology Career Center (ITCC), in Marietta and they
4 have the sub-contract for the substantive program for Cobb's

YETP. This is classroom training in word processing, electrical skills, and welding. The Cobb planners are somewhat

skeptical whether the 90 percent placement record of the Oak

Ridge group will be sustained with this youth group. In terms

of the high cost of the program (estimated as about $12,000 per

participant), the ITCC courses are viewed as experimental.

Cobb County's near miss in not applying for YETP and YCCIP

grants was partially due to an absence of prospective delivery

agents except ITCC which was established in the area about the

time that YEDPA was to become operational. The Cobb Board of

Commissioners and planners are ambivalent about the cost and

are withholding their judgments. The results of the program

and more specifically the placement record is the knowledge

they expect developed, thus Lssentially they are asking about

impact of one expensive approach to training youth.

DeKalb's avowed knowledge development goals arise out of

cconcern for the high dropout rate and poor placement record

among females in their Title I clerical training program. Thus

a YETP component comparable to the Title I clerical training

program was created with the addition of more concentrated services for participants. YETP and Title I outcomes, in terms of

retention throughout the program and placement rate, will be

compared. The development of knowledge has been affected by the

slow start-up of the DeKalb program. This component lost three

sets of prospective participants while awaiting final approval

of contracts by the Board of Commissioners, thus is behind its
5 program cycle:. An extension for tnis component ueyonc.

September 30 may be necessary if the knowledge development

agenda is to be fulfilled.

The CETA Coordinator for the DeKalb schools, a former

school teacher and educational administrator, is challenged

by the knowledge development mandate. Although she does not

refer to some of her other activities as knowledge development,

she is compelled to answer some of the perplexing questions of

youths' inability to succeed in the world of work. Her aredisposition and orientations are those of a researcher thus

inherently she is testing out hypotheses relating to empaoyability.

In general, the sheer pressure of time and resources has

relegated knowledge aevelopment to a minor role at least in a

formal sense. Clearly, the prime sponsors will learn from

YEDPA though it remains to be een whether they pull the various

strands of their information and conclusions together in more

than a cursory manner. Whether those who want to do rigorous

comparisons between youth YETP and Title I will depend on

CETA program pressures at the end of the program.

II. Content and Quality of Work Experience

The quality of work experience in the three sponsorships

which created jobs (the Cobb program does not include this except

for YCCIP) is circumscribed by the capabilities of job developers.

These are either CBOs or school personnel, usually individual

teachers, and to a minor extent the ES in PaKalb County. All of
the Northeast Georgia work experience and the in-school portion of Atlanta's program depended on the teachers in the

schools in which the program operates to find the positions.

The kinds of work in which these school youth are receiving

work experience are those which youth, and indeed non-youth

work-experience participants, have traditionally been placed.

The public and private agencies are those which CETA has sustained under other titles. Some very limited placement has

been made in the private sector. The results of some site

visits and conversations with teachers and youth are instructi ve.

The Northeast Georgia Career Education Experience program

combines a career exploration and job preparation class taught

by a teacher with work experience which is usually within he

school. Subsequently the student moves to a placement in the

private sector under an OJT contract which ES develops. The

transition teacher at Clarke Central High School in Athens

developed some work experience slots outside of the high school

in non-profit organizations including a hospital, the Boy., Club,

and a food service operation at the University of Georgia. A

private day care center and a motel were the site of two OJT

placements. These jobs could not 'e c,n:trued as anything other

than traditional youth jobs.

In rural rreene County the participants are primarily

employed in the Greene County School System (at all three school

levels--elementary, middle, and high) where they work mostly

as tutors and teachers' aides helping with paperwork or in a main-
7 tenance. They work two hours per day in some cases, during

the school day and in others, after school. All receive

elective credit for this work experience except a few participants, who are high school graduates. The program is

the first job for a number of participants. For one who had

attempted various activities it was a chance to focus anG redirect

her career objectives. The student had previously worked at

several jobs and briefly attended a business school. Through her

YETP assignment and the encouragement of the YETP-program teacher

she has been inspired to become a teacher.

Another youth aspires to attend college but the teacher

confided that his reading level was second grade. Others had

equally unrealistic career objectives in view of their abilities. Many of the students were chosen for the program because

their achievement was low. But attitude was a selection factor

and those who were perceived as potential troublemakers were

not chosen. The element which distinguishes the Northeast

Georgia CEE is the daily class with the transition teacher,

work preparation for which participants receive a partial unit

of academic credit.

While youth jobs in this program are low skilled demanding no particular education or training, an advantage is that

they are placed with a supervisor in a one-to-one relationship.

In talking with several supervisors, this close supervision was

credited with "opening up" reticent young persons, giving them

confidence as well as teaching them various tasks.
The in-school program in Atlanta is akin to the Northeast

Georgia program but with some notable differences. The program teachers serve as counselors meeting the students individually for counseling rather than in a career preparation class.

The granting of credit varies from 'chool to school and

student to student. Since the pr.' cipal aim of the Atlanta

program is to retain potential dropouts, career exploration and

preparation is not heavily emphasized, but handled by counselors

on an ad hoc basis. Visits at two of eight high schools

targeted for the in-school program (the two counselors were considered particularly competent by the in-school program supervisor)

illustrate the nature of the work experiences.

Price High School is located adjacent to one of the City's

most troubled housing projects. The school's population comes

from the project and nearby areas which have high concentions of poor blacks. Most of the students in the program have

poor grades and/or attendance. Price High School participants

work two hours per day, after school only. Consequently no

high school credits are being earned by the participants for

the work experience. They cannot receive pay on any day they

miss school. Many of the participants work at youth facilities,

such as a City recreation center, YMCA, or day care centers;

others are placed in the Atlanta Public Library, a hospital,

and the school. The jobs involve assistance with general office

work, as well as assisting youth in recreation activities. For

most participants these are their first jobs, and their high

expectations of the work world clashed with reality. Some ex2.1r-
9

pressed disinterest in their duties on some of the jobs, and

some have had differences with their immediate supervisors.

This counselor is stressing learning "coping" behavior, such

as regular attendance at school and work, establishing contact

with adults in a work setting, and negotiating the transportation system, rather than challenging employment. She commented

that some of the participants had not been out of the

Southwest area of the City thus merely exposing them to another

area of the City at a job site was a positive experience. The

counselor feels that a major drawback to the program was the

short duration, only one school quarter, and the last-minute

implementation which precluded coordination of course work and

work experience.

The other high school, Bass, is located in an area of reviving neighborhoods with close-by concentrations of poor whites

and poor to middle income blacks. The general economic level

is less deprived than that surrounding Price. The counselor

placed several youth at the school as recreation aides, eight

at the nearby Recreation Center, and several in various capacities at the OIC offices. He met with no success in getting

placements at some community institutions--the branch library

and a nearby hospital. This partially explains the number of

youth (eight) placed at the recreation center under one supervisor, a situation which, considering the use of the center,

is excessive. This counselor's major success was placements at

the OIC office (one student has been doing the payroll). In

terms of high school credit for work experience, some students
10

who are allowed early dismissal will receive elective credit.

The counselor said he hadn't told some students about this yet

so they won't "jive" him. It is unclear whether the counselor

can make the decision to grant or to withhold the credit.

As for their future life's work, the participants in

the various locations have similar career objectives. Some of

the participants in Greene County are planning to go to college

or to concentrate in child development, nursing, or business.

A large number of these participants hope to relocate to Atlanta

when they have completed high school. Some of the participants

here are working in areas they would like to pursue as permanent

careers.

The Cobb County situation is very different. A large

number of the participants plan to work in the competencies in

which they are being trained. The few who have other career

objectives are planning to attend college. The entire group

plans to continue living in Cobb County.

The participants at Price High School are undecided as to

what they want to pursue on a career basis. The majority of

the participants are sophomores and juniors. A very small number are considering college. Others want to take up trades but

haven't made up their minds about which trades to follow.

In DeKalb County the participants are generally working in

the fields they would like to pursue as careers. They feel the

program is a stepping stone to the future and for some this will

be college. One participant in the DeKalb County EOA program,

working as an office assistant and doing payroll, decided she
11

she wants to specialize in accounting. She says "I didn't

know accounting could be so much fun. If I had known it was

this much fun, I could have taken more courses in high school."

She plans to enroll in a local college in the near future.

The college emphasis throughout the various areas may

have been a reaction to being interviewed by a college student

as well as a reasonable objective. For many students it is

altogether unrealistic given their academic records. Those

youth in classroom training geared toward occupations in demand tended to have career goals in line with YETP program experience. Those in career exploration as yet have riot sharply

focused on available and attainable career goals.

III. Youth Participation

This principle is univerally recognizLd as important and

all sponsors are concerned that youth participate in the Youth

Council. No sponsor is exploring alternatives to the Council

for youth input. The extent that youth have drooped off, not

come to meetings, or been silent has worried some Council

members, and others have concluded that the barriers to Youth

Council participation are as tough to break as the barriers to their

employment.

The newly formed Cobb County Youth Council is off to a

promising start. According to the CETA planner the four youth

members feel free to speak out and otherwise participate in

the Council. She attributes this to the relatively small size

of the Council (eleven members), to the proportion of youth

members (one-third), and to the fact that most of the adults
12

are known to the young members. The adult members include

the principal of the high school, representatives from the

vocational-technical school, the YMCA, and ES, and the

career education supervisor from the Cobb Board of Education.

The students were selected by the principal who is recognized

for her personable relationships with all students. She

also is credit ?d with creating an atmosphere on the board

which encourages youth participation. The youth are also serving on an oversight committee for the summer program.

The Atlanta Youth Council has been fortunate to have

Jeffrey Cooper, a member of the National Youth ParticipantObserver Committee serve as a youth member,. He is a very

active questioner and critic. At the April Youth Council

meeting he was particularly persistent on the subject of the

quality of'summer jobs. His unwillingness to accept explanations

caused some consternation among adult members, but others

were supportive of his role. 'Other youth members are not nearly

so outspoken, thus he is unique for this probing curiosity.

Mr. Cooper's enthusiasm did not, however, extend to participating

on a proposal rating committee for the summer program. The

youth planner was quick to point this up at the meeting. The

planners have kept all youth informed of committee meetings but

have had little success with involving them. The youth member from

Economic Opportunity Atlanta has not participated at all on the

Council and will be dropped. That group had complained of their

exclusion from various aspects of YEDPA and were offered a youth

slot, in addition to their adult slot, but this was not followed

2uo
17; with participation.

In interviews with program participants several youth mentioned

having previously been in what they thought were CETA programs.

However, they do not recognize nuances of program titles and parts.

Three of the students in the classroom training program in Cobb

County recounted past experiences (one was in "YCC" several years

ago).. They clearly prefer the current program but it is unique

(skill training with assurances of job availability). Youth in

other prime sponsors mentioned participation in what must have been

work experience programs ard they too express preference for the

current program. Interviews with program participants tended to

include praise for the current program, which might be interreted

as appreciation for their checks or reluctance to jeopardize their

enrollment. No piercing comparisons between past and present experiences under CETA are forthcoming.

IV. Targeting

As of the first quarterly report of characteristics for youth

program participants the enrollment of the economically disadvantaged

is less than the plans of prime sponsors indicated. This observation should be taken cautiously and may not be borne out subsequently

since most programs were not fully operational as of March 31. The

following table summarizes the family income status by program and

prime sponsor. The monthly payment for AFDC for a family of four in

Georgia is $148, annually amounting to $1776; a level far below the

family income maximum for economically disadvantaged, thus this is

shown separately.

,2;)
Economically

Disadvantaged

Atlanta Cobb De'a1b NE Ga.

YETP YETP YCCIP YETP YuCIP YETP YETP- YETP YCCIP

In-Sch. EOA

AFDC 14% 47% 1..).4 6% 18% 25% 32% 12% 19% Non-AFDC 40 12 38 81 82 19 68 80 81

70-85% 46 41 46 13 0 74 0 8 8

Although the Atlanta in-school program was below its full enrollment

as of these statistics, it has a notably high percentage of AFDC recipients. The targeting of high schools in which the in-school program,

is offered included AFDC as one of three criteria. Several of the

targeted high schools are located adjacent to public housing projects

which further facilitates the enrollment of the economically deprived.

The economically disadvantaged (less than the 70 percent of the BLS

lower living standard) comprised most 'or all of the participants in

program components operated by community action agencies (YCCIP

in NE Georgia and a YETP component in DeKalb). These agencies had

their own recruitment and outreach. Referrals to the Cobb County

YETP and YCCIP programs were made by the Employment Service, and by

the high school principal for in-school YETP youth, and yet their

percentage of economically disadvantaged is the highest even though

poverty is much less pervasive than in Atlanta.

The Atlanta and DeKalb percentages for economically disadvantaged are incorrect. The DeKalb income statistics are being reworked

as a result of this interviewer's explanation of their definition.

(The program total for economically disadvantaged was less than

that of the DeKalb EOA component.) The Atlanta report was being revised for problems that they flagged, and the revision may include the

income variable. A bimodal distribution of income as shown seems im211.
15

probable. It is more likely that economic-disadvantaged standards

are not understood (see below).

In NE Georgia the YETP program is operated through twelve

schools with the programs transition teacher, school counselors ane

principals involved in selecting youth. Except for Athens, these

schools are in fairly rural counties in which the white middle class

has largely abandoned the public schools for private academies. Thus

the school population is more economically disadvantaged and has more

blacks than the population as a whole. In a visit with the program

teacher in Greene County High School she quoted such incomes as a

family of four living on $2000; eight on $4500.; and eleven, on $8000.

In certifying eligibility this particular teacher was able to verify

income on the basis of her knowledge of the area, its pay scales, and

other income source levels. In these rural. communities school officials are intimate with the details of their students' lives, which is

advantageous to the extent that those truly in need are identifiable.

In Cobb County, veriffCation is made concerning receipt of AFDC, but

otherwise not of other income unless a complaint is received by the ES

Office.

This interviewer visited the most recent public intake session

for Atlanta's program. Youth are certified eligible on the spot if

they have brought evidence of their age, address, and school withdrawal (or completion) and otherwise meet eligibility criteria. The

word of the enrollee is accepted when reporting income and no further

documentation is requested. The interviewers compare the participant's family income with the 85 percent of the BLS living standard

for the relevant family size to determine eligibility. Though

the economically disadvantaged (below 70 percent) are targeted for

21..2
16

prelrcnov, ihQ inLakn inturviewrt. hvc no documonLatiun thocA2

income standards, therefore they cannot determine this status Laid

act to give preference to these youth.

The role of CBOs is not particularly an issue for targeting

in these prime sponsors since the schools, the ES, and for Atlanta,

the CETA central intake, handle intake and referral. To the

limited extent that CAP agencies are involved their outreach was

exclusively to the economically disadvantaged. The schools are the

key agents in terms of the allocation of participants and to date

they are reaching those economically in need..

In terms of other preferences notable was a stated objective,

but not included in significant segments in the grant, of the NE Georgia

program to enroll whites. Their concern was that CETA and particularly the in-school Title I program, was viewed as exclusively a black

program to which whites have been reluctant to apply. Thus far one

quarter of their YETP participants are white, a greater percentage

than the Title I in-school program. By a teacher's description the

white students who were enrolled in one high school were distinguished by pathological family circumstances whereas the blacks were more

economically impoverished. The teacher's accounting of the white

students' circumstances conveyed a sense of impending disaster to

the girls had they not been enrolled in YETP.

Two opposite tendencies are at work vis-a-vis students educational abilities. Atlanta's in-school program mandates the enrollment

of the "high-risk" population, those with low achievement, poor attendance, and other characteristics of potential dropouts. However,

the Marietta High School principal selected in-school youth with

positive qualities such as good attendance and absence of disciplinary problems. She justified thi/lai necessary to help insure the

tw1 0
17

success of the experimental program and implied that progra;.!

success now would lead to program permanence.

Data from interviews with youth in four settings address their

economic and social circumstances:

The youth in the Greene County High program come from various

family settings--some youth live with cousins, uncles, grandparents, and foster parents, but more with families headed only by a

mother. Virtually all of the participants live throughout various rural

parts of the county rather than in the county seat of Greensboro

where the only high school is located. The county is not among the

better counties economically in the State. The majority of youth

guardians, if they are employed, work in the local garment factories.

Most of the families are large with only one person employed. There

is one instance of a participant living by herself and the program

is her sole source of support.

Price High School in Atlanta is located in one of the city's

poorest communities. The school location is next to Carver Homes,

one of the rough and undesirable neighborhoods of the City. A very

large number of the participants live in the publicly supported

housing project. fhe majority of the participantslive with one parent,

who receives some form of public assistance.

The participants in the Cobb County program are primarily from

households comprised of both parents. The parents work in established

settings including Lockheed and Dobbins Air Force Base and in some

families both parents are employed. The participants usually do not

contribute to the household financially. There is one case where

both husband and wife are in the program and use the funds from the

program to maintain their household.

214
18

At the DeKalb EOA program a married participant helps pay

the family car note and the baby sitter. Another individual at

EOA made this statement during an interview: "I am working more

for my family than I am for myself." This particular participant

and her four sisters live with their grandmother, who is unemployed

and receiving public assistance.

V. Substitution

Of the ten Youth Act principles, prime sponsors seem to be

most sensitive to this one. Without exception they tell the interviewer that Title I enrollments of youth must be maintained at preYEDPA levels. Based on cursory comparisons of current Title I

enrollments with those of a year ago, indeed enrollments are being

maintained (however, a more definitive examination will be included

in tne third interim report). The youth share of Title I enrollments

is two-thirds in the NE Georgia counties, 60 percent in Cobb County,

about half in DeKalb, and close to 40 percent in Atlanta. The

Title I programs and the services for youth are not different in

1978 than in the previous year. No substantial departures are anticipated for the coming year.

A crude approximation of whether YEDPA is meeting the need for

youth employment services can be made by comparing prime sponsors'

estimates of the universe of that need with some projection of the

number who will be affected by the program. The number of youth

whose family income is below 85 percent of the BLS lower living standard is used for need and the total enrollments expected in YETP and

YCCIP is used for service, although it is a more generous measure

than numbers of slots. On this basis Cobb County has 3200 youth in
19

need and will reach about 105; DeKalb, 3500 and about 370; and

Northeast Georgia, 8100 and about 440. At best the service meets

only one-tenth of need.

Atlanta's grant contained no estimate of numbers of youth below

the 85 percent criteria. But the number of individuals in poverty

in 1970 was estimated as 81,000, considered conservative for 1978.

(Atlanta noted that over 14,500 youth had been arrested in 1976.)

The number who will be enrolled is projected at 1100.

Substitution Issues for the Future

Some 1500 participants in the expanded PSE program in Atlanta

will be unemployed imminently due to the expiration of their projects.

This will probably add to the applicant pool for Title I from nonyouth, who account for approximately two-thirds of participants. On

the other hand the unemployment rate for Atlanta is, as of March,

6.9 percent compared to 9.2 percent a year ago. Thus the labor market is somewhat better able to cope with these ex-PSE participants.

In Cobb County the Title I program contracts for a Nurses'

Assistant Training class. That program has been so successful that

demand for the program from students who are not CETA-eligible has

been significant. The Marietta Board of Education is seriously

considering assuming the cost of the program and opening. it up to a

broader constituency than CETA. This coincides with the expansion

of the Marietta High School into a Comprehensive High School with a vocational education program. If the nurses' assistant course is absorbed by the Board of Education, 205 program slots under Title I which

have been filled by youth will be lost. Thus Title I enrollments of

youth will decrease without some program alteration. The termination
20

of expanded PSC is also relevant for this area in terms of possible

substitution effects.

The implementation of YETP in Northeast Georgia high scnools

alongside the Title I in-school program has heightened the comparison between the two. The Title I program has been heavily criticized

for loose supervision whereas the YETP CEE is tightly supervised.

This may eventually work against the Title I in-school program and it!

administrator, ACTION, the local CAP. It is unlikely that it

would be eliminated, but not beyond the realm of possibility that it

would be altered or curtailed.

VI. Overhead

The most candid observation on this subject was from one CETA

official who exclaimed "There is no free lunch." After three years

of every agency in most prime sponsor areas being supported with

PSE. CETA is the pump to which others come to drink rather than the

reverse. An exception is $36,000 from Community Services Administration to the ACTICN agency (CAP agency in NE Georgia) for toeir project

to weatherize homes of low income families.

In DeKalb County the programs operated by the Board of

Education get free testing services from the school system. Their

program overhead is kept down in part because their offices and

courses are in an otherwise unused school.
21

VII. Institutional Change

The potential for change in institutional roles and relationships

is 'greatest between the LEAs and the CETA systems. Relationships

with labor unions and the private sector are nil thus a small alteration in roles here will not represent a significant overall change in

relationships. Several sponsors (Atlanta and Northeast. Georgia

especially) have high hopes of involving the private sector.

LEA agreements have been successfully negotiated by all four

sponsors but the process was sometimes lengthy. Atlanta's Youth Council did not approve the draft LEA financial agreement the first time

it was presented (January) because of skepticism of the potential

performance of the Atlanta Board of Education (ABED). The final agree-

, ment was more explicit regarding selection of youth, the program

location, and procedures for measuring and evaluating goals for youth

performan.ce. This agreement does not however represent the first

cooperation between the CETA program and the Atlanta Public Schools.

The schools operate a number of other "alternative" programs. If tne

in-school YETP program exceeds expectations of Council members there

may be grounds for strengthening the schools' role in youth programs,

but the reverse is also possible.

Under Cobb's LEA, a non-financial agreement, in-school youth are

enrolled with out-of-school youth in ITCC's training program. The

in-school youth are all third semester seniors and will guaduate in

June. They are receiving academic credit,some of which is non-elective.

For example, the participants in Word Processing may be getting English

credit. The Marietta Board of Education requires more units for graduation than the State Board for some subjects (e.g., English, four
rather than thr'ee units). For students in special vocational programs, including YETP, these additional local requirements may be waived.

It should be noted that the other school system in Cobb County,

the Cobb County Board of Education, did not opt to participate in

YETP. Institutional change cannot be achieved to any significant

degree without their cooperation since they operate eleven high schools

compared to Marietta's one. Another factor here too is that the

Marietta-Cobb Vocational-Technical School had no more enrollment

capability,thus the arrival of the ITCC group was crucial to Cobb's

YETP. Since ITCC is linked to Lockheed, through the institutional

staff the private sector is being linked to youtn program delivery.

The presence of this new delivery agency may alter the role of the

post-secondary school by providing an alternative for Title I train

ing components.

Regarding academic credit the rule that LEAs are following is

to allow elective credit for work experience since that decision may be

made by local boards and does not necessitate approval of the State

Board of Education. Both the Marietta Board of Education and some

county systems in Northeast Georgia allowed credit, as described previously, for other activities. In Atlanta individual schools made

different decisions on work experience within current guidelines for

granting credit. No institutional changes in credit-granting are

forthcoming yet. YETP is being subjected to the prevailing policies

regarding credit in all sponsors.

VIII. Delivery Agents

If community involvement is conceived as CBO involvement, two

patterns emerge with the four Georgia prime sponsors. One is a limit21J
23

ed role for CBOs, either at current ur decreased levels, and the

other is a virtual reliance on CBOs. The later is characteristic of

Atlanta and the former of the other three areas. In part the

limited role of CBOs in the non-Atlanta prime sponsors is due to the

paucity of such organizations and a limitation of their role to what

they do well in sponsorships where they have been CETA program

operators.

The YETP program in Atlanta is sub-contracted to eleven delivery

agents including the Board of Education. Of the ten, all are considered CBOs by the regulation definition. These include the local

branches of two national CBOs specifically mentioned in the regulations, the Atlanta Urban League and OIC of Atlanta. Otherwise the

CBOs are "home grown" with three agencies receiving their first

ever CETA contract with the YETP program. Three other CBOs have

received only summer youth program funding in the past. The president of one of the local CBOs, the United Youth Adult Conference,

is a member of Atlanta's City Council, thus the decision to fund

this agency has been criticized by the white newspaper (the Atlanta

Constitution). In the Youth Council rating of YETP projects this

proposal was highest rated and the only agent funded for job placement. But the implication that the program is enhancing the Councilman's agency persists. As recounted in the first interim report

a notable exclusion from delivery agents from among CBOs is Economic

Opportunity Atlanta. Yet they will play a major role in the summer

youth program as they have traditionally. Thus their absence from

YETP delivery does not necessarily signal a permanent exclusion from

youth programs.
24

Though the CBOs have virtually all of the YETP program operations, excluding the in-school portion, they have none of the

intake and referral function. Not only has the Atlanta CETA program

established its own centralized intake and referral for YEDPA but

the upcoming summer program will be served by a central referral

unit operated by the Employment Service. The move toward a centralized referral for youth programs seems to have been motivated because of past abuses. Previously contractors have enrolled and

certified youth for the summer program; last summer the ABE overenrolled an excess of 200 youth and consequently overspent their

budget. Additionally the entire Atlanta CETA program has been beset

with charges of mismanagement and payroll irregularities. A comprehensive federal audit has resulted, to date, in eleven indictments

of payroll fraud (however amounting to a paultry sum compared to the

total program expenditures). Consequently some CETA systems have been

strengthened to decrease potential abuses. At the kickoff workshop to

introduce the community to Super Summer the Director, Aaron Turpeau,

was especially cautionary to potential sub-contractors regarding

surveillance of time sheet reports to assure accuracy.

Although the Atlanta Board of Education (ABE) was limited to

only 22 percent of YETP, relationships between several CBOs and the

educational system are promising for more coordination between delivery agents. One CBO with a CETA contract for the first time, the

Tommy Nobis Center, is an organization specializing in services to

the handicapped and has received support from the Atlanta schools.

Another,Literacy Action, also new to the CETA delivery system, has

contracted for functional educational services with the State of
25

Georgia. kesponsiuility Language Systems, a YETP sub-contractor

for an innovative program to teach behavioral styles and to improve

communication, has linkages both with ABE and with another CBO.

It operates an in-school module under YETP as part of an .BE program

for potential dropouts, Project Propinquiry. Participants in its

out-of-school component at its completion are referred to another

sub-contractor, UYAC, for a program cycle for job enhancement and

placement. Thus these tenuous relationships between CBOs and the

LEA point to potential institutional cooperation for youth programs.

Cobb County is notable for an absence of any traditional CBOs

for operating employment and training programs. Unlike the other

Georgia areas under examination there is no community action agency.

Since the county has a very small proportion of blacks there are no

Urban Leagues, OICs, or other organizations which are found in population centers with heavier concentrations of blacks. The only organizations which qualify as CBOs are the YMCA, YWCA, Boys' and Girls'

Clubs. These organizations have no real capability to offer a YETP

program. To date their CETA involvement is through PSE. The YMCA

and YWCA jointly share the YCCIP project with the YMCA serving as

administrator. This is the first such cooperative venture for the

two. Otherwise the only agents for program delivery have been the

Employment Service and the educational institutions. Cobb Countypersonnel only plan, and all other operations are contracted out. Since

the Cobb County Board of Education is not participating in YEDPA,

the Marietta School System and the ES are the outreach to the community.

The ES youth counselor in Marietta, the only ES office in the county,

has several years service and has an amazing capacity to remember and
26

keep track of youth with whom she comes in contact. ine principal

of the Marietta High School also is knowledgeable and concerned with

youth currently and formerly in her school. Especially in the case

of the latter this personal contact substitutes for the function

which a constituency CBO serves. From conversations with these

women and others who described them, their roles are maternal and

familiar within the institutional context.

As discussed in the first interim report the role of the community action agency in NE Georgia has been limited to operating YCCIP. An agency new to CETA, the Coordinating Educational Servicing Agency (CESA), has the YETP contract. The recruitment of youth

into that program is done locally in the twelve high schools in which

the program operates. In terms of reaching the disadvantaged both

ACTION and CESA are reaching economically disadvantaged equally well;

this is not difficult in these counties where low incomes are widespread.

The community action agency in DeKalb county has a sub-contract

under YETP for work experience whereas the LEA (DeKalb Board of

Education) operates the major portion of YETP. In this instance the

CAA is not as competent as the LEA to operate career exploration

and training. The DeKalb Schools historically have operated the

summer youth programs (since 1964) and were prime sponsor for categorical programs prior to CETA. Thus their record and experience

overshadow that of EOA in terms of offering comprehensive services

to youth. EOA has not suffered in reputation as has the agency in

NE Georgia. Their current program is dynamically administered and

directed.
27

IX, X.Coordindting Services for Youth dna Future

YEDPA has resulted in the creation of a new Title III office

.under the Atlanta CETA program which coordinates and administers

YETP and YCCIP. It will do the same for the summer program and

those special demonstration youth projects to the extent that they

are funded. As previously mentioned an intake and referral unit

has also been established. The Youth Council has reviewed the sum-

. mer program and made decisions for funding sub-contractors. YEDPA

experience has also affected the summer program in that some new

contractors under YETP will also operate summer programs. Career

exploration is also receiving increased emphasis for the summer

program. Youth in the in-school program will stay in their jobs

but at twice as many hours, thus no interruption in their participation is foreseen.

Other prime sponsors have not taken as many actions toward

coordination, partly because there are many fewer staff,programs,

and participants to be coordinated. A tendency which can be construed

as a different sort of coordination effort is that the smaller sponsorships favor a single agent with which to contract all or most

of the program. This is true for all three non-Atlanta YCCIP

programs and for the Cobb and NE Georgia YETP. In DeKalb the LEA

subcontracts for most of YETP, sharing only with EOA, and to the ES

for OJT. Under DeKalb's program the ES has opened a permanent youth

office to counsel, refer, and place youth.

Except for Atlanta's administrative consolidation into a Youth

Office most administrative and programmatic responses have been designed to be built upon or dropped.
REPORT ON THE YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ACT

* Paul Osterman

May, 1978

* Assistant Professor of Economics, Boston University and Regional Institute on

Employment and Training Policy. Important fieldwork was conducted by Alan

Dalezman, Sylvia McDowell, Hubert Smith, and Russell Williams.
Introduction

This second interim report on YETP and YCCIP describes

the programs in three Prime Sponsors: Boston, Worcester, and

Eastern Middlesex. The first part of the report provides detail

on the nature of the programs we have observed, the current

status of the programs, and various issues and problems which

have emerged. The second section of the report takes up several

topics of general interest and analyzes them from the viewpoint

:f all three Prime Sponsors.

With a few exceptions the programs are now well underway

after a somewhat slow start. The YETP programs in all three

Primes look very much like traditional Title I programs, i.e.

in-school work experience. There are obviously exceptions, but

this is the central tendency. The major change involved in the

YETP programs is the LEA agreements, which have generally been

quite successful. The YCCIP programs are more of a departure

from past practice in that they generally involve small-scale

activities with demonstrable physical outputs. In this sense

the intent of the legislation has been well met.

Eastern Middlesex

The most significant impact of YETP and YCCIP in Eastern

Middlesex has been to orient the Prime toward youth programs, a

new direction. This is true both in terms of slots (for example,

prior to YEDPA, Cambridge had only sixteen youth Title I slots)

-1-
and staffing (a new youth director was hired as a result of the

program). In addition, the LEA agreement has clearly helped

develop a stronger and more cooperative CETA/school system relationship than had existed previously.

The programs, as of March 31, had enrolled 241 out of a

projected 341 youth. In Cambridge, the city we have most closely

observed, 105 out of 125 youth were enrolled.

The programs described below are all Cambridge programs.

In addition, in the other towns, there is a YCCIP housing rehabilitation program, a YCCIP alcohol awareness program, and inschool work experience slots.

CEOC Programs

The Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee runs three

YETP programs: an OJT program for in-school seniors, a "media"

project which includes both in and out-of-school youth, and a

placement/information service.

These programs are largely in-school and the school

system's involvement is the essence of the LEA agreement. The

school system is deeply involved in selecting the youth and

several joint meetings were held to decide upon enrollees. The

procedure involved going over the list of applicants, discussing each, and reaching a determination. It is clear that the

specific knowledge of the youth on the part of the school staff

led to an informed selection process. There was also very explicit attention to racial and sexual balance.
In general, the LEA arrangement appears to be working

well. There was some initial tension concerning allocation of

resources (the schools expected that CETA would donate equipment to the schools) and over the respective role of regular

school counselors and CETA counselors. However, these tensions

seem to be resolved.

The OJT program intended to enroll approximately 45 youth

for initial "Job Shop" training, send 3 youth to each employer

who would select one, and then try to place the rejected youth

elsewhere in the system. Two problems have emerged: it proved

difficult to find OJT slots and (perhaps luckily) too few youth

applied. One difficulty with the OJT slots is that most employers do not want to be bothered with the paperwork, supervision, and obligations entailed by OJT. Currently twenty-two youth are

enrolled in the program, five of wham have been placed.

The media project involves work experience with video tape, graphics, and

the like. It currently includes five in-school and seventeen out of school

youth. The mornings are spent in GED classes, the afternoons in media

related activities.

Just-A-Start

The Just-A-Start program is a YCCIP housing rehabilitation program for 15 youth. The program includes a GED component.

The Just-A-Start corporation is ten years old and began as a

housing rehabilitation program for the City of Cambridge. It

also runs an in-school program during the year and summer.
Unlike many of the programs we have observed in the

various cities, this program had a surplus of applicants. The

program appears to have close ties with street workers in

several Cambridge neighborhoods. The selection process involved the youth in at least two interviews, one with a staff

person from the Cambridge CETA office and another with the

director of the program itself. (In general, Cambridge and

EMHRDA staff were more directly involved in selection for both

Just-A-Start and CEOC programs than was typical in other Prime

Sponsors).

The selection interviews emphasized the program's goals

and laid particular stress upon work habits. The process was

heavily biased in favor of admitting women (who were a scarce

commodity), even to the point of stretching the interpretation

of eligibility guidelines.

The work itself involves rehabilitation of private homes.

We observed, for example, the insulation of a home owned by an

elderly widow. One crew we observed had four youth and a supervisor, another had 5 youth and a supervisor. In addition,

there appears to be frequent spot checking by the central office

staff of Just-A-Start. GED classes are held several evenings a week.

Boston

Boston, in addition to operating its YETP and YCCIP programs, is also an Entitlement city. The Entitlement, called

Project YES, is obviously a strong source of competition with
the YETP/YCCIP programs for staff energy and attention.

The YETP programs are all fully operational. There were

no start-up problems with these since they all were Title I

programs switched to YETP. The new YETP activities are the LEA

agreement and an early effort at establishing a new centralized

assessment and intake center. Both of these are described in

greater detail below. From the viewpoint of what is new about

Boston's YETP activities, the LEA agreement stands out.

The YCCIP programs in Boston got off to a slow start, in

keeping with the national pattern. The causes of the slow start

can be thought of in three categories: (1) administrative problems at the Prime Sponsor level; (2) administrative problems

within the programs; and (3) difficulties in finding youth. We

discuss each of these in more detail below. All YCCIP programs

are now in operation.

The Boston Prime Sponsor has clearly established the

largest central operation of any of the three Primes we have

examined. In part this is due to the Entitlement. In addition,

the Prime Sponsor is housed in an agency--the Employment and

Economic Policy Administration--which performs other functions

in addition to CETA. As a result, the Prime has been ambitious,

attempting in a variety of non-programmatic ways to form new

institutional linkages for youth activities. An example is a

recent two-day conference sponsored by the Prime and Northeastern

University which brought together private sector leaders, youth

workers in a variety of non-CETA agencies, CETA contractors,

and Prime Sponsor staff to discuss future directions for youth

-5- 2 0
programs. Another consequence of the ambitiousness of the Prime

has been a continuing conflict with Action for Boston Community

Development (ABCD), the largest contractor, over the Prime's

attempt to re-allocate resources.

The sections below describe in some detail the programs

which we have observed most closely. Other programs funded by

YETP and YCCIP are:

1. The Rent-A-Kid program, a YETP odd jobs program;

2. A YMCA YETP program for young ex-offenders;

3. A bilingual program, Casa del Sol, for Spanish

out-of-school youth;

4. Two YCCIP construction and rehabilitation programs.

World of Work

The World of Work program, rur by the Charlestown Boys'

Club, is an in-school program designed to place youth in the

private sector. The program operate on one-month cycles. Each

month, roughly fifteen youth from a Boston neighborhood are recruited into the program and put through training sessions

designed to prepare them to apply for jobs. After the sessions

they are sent to interviews arranged by the program's job developers. The program is non-stipended; if hired, the youth

become regular employees of the company. The jobs are characteristically in large downtown retail establishments.
The program has traditionally operated in several Boston

neighborhoods but has been forced to move into new areas when

old neighborhoods became Entitlement districts. When the program entered a new neighborhood it recruited youth by contacting

a number of social service agencies in the area, calling a meeting to explain the program, and asking the agencies for referrals.

Most agencies knew of the program, and there was very little difficulty gaining cooperation.

The job preparation sessions consist of various interest

and behavior inventory tests followed by extensive coaching on

how to fill out applications, how to behave in job interviews,

how to behave on the job, and so forth.

The program is not new to YETP; it had been funded previuusly under Title I. Thus there was no start-up difficulty.

The only mechanical problems were caused by the Entitlement,

which led to a shifting of project staff (some experienced staff

shifting to the Entitlement) and to changing the target areas.

These changes do not appear to have caused any serious diff iculties.

The Boston LEA Program

Boston's LEA agreement is unique among the Primes in

that the Boston Prime Sponsor has subcontracted directly with

the school system to establish in-school programs. The School

-7-

230
Department is thus running its own programs. This LEA agreement

is thus probably the most innovative (in the sense of different

from past practice) of Boston's YETP programs. This is not the

first time the schools and CETA have interacted in Boston, the

ABCD in-school program obviously works through the schools, but

it is a qualitatively new level of cooperation.

There is general satisfaction among the Boston Prime and

the School staff with the arrangement. Probably central to this

satisfaction is the widespread respect commanded by the individual who is coordinating the school program.

The programs established under the LEA agreement seem to

largely operate without a close working relationship with the

other elements of the CETA system. There is obviously administrative communication on issues such as budgets (and one of the

more difficult tasks facing the schools in establishing the program was learning Labor Department regulations and vocabulary)

and many of the youth went through the ABCD assessment center.

However, beyond this the programs largely operate in isolation.

The School Department has established a variety of programs under the LEA agreement. These are described below in

varying detail.

(1) EDCO

EDCO is an educational collaborative which contracts with

various school systems in the Boston area to provide educational

2;;;;
services. In addition to running YETP and CCIP programs for

Boston it also does so for various other local school systems.

It is also involved in a portion of Boston's Entitlement Program.

EDCO has two programs partially funded by the Boston YETP Program. These are an "alternative school" in Waltham and a Lab

School in Boston.

The Waltham School is an entirely new undertaking funded

by YETP. It includes students from Boston and from various

suburbs. Students alternate between a week of classes and a week

of work experience placements. The emphasis is not upon skill

training but rather on "pre-work" behavior. In one site which

we visited, a community health center, two students worked on

various clerical tasks. EDCO selected teachers from within the

school system to work at Waltham and reimbursed the schools for

substitute teachers.

The Lab School existed prior to YETP. It is a desegregation program which brings suburban students into the city to

take a half-day of classes and to work half-time. This program

has experienced some difficulty because some staff feel that the

addition of YETP students "tips" the student mix too much in

the direction of disadvantaged. However, evidently some of the

YETP funded participants were already enrolled in the Lab School.

(2) Hyde Park

This program serves special needs (retarded) students who

are paired with regular students on work sites. Ten of each
group are funded under YETP. The program existed prior to

YETP and no new youth were added. The new funds were used to

hire supervisors and provide additional work hours, particularly

in the summer. It is unclear exactly how many hours students

work, and this may vary since some students do not take classes

and some students seem to combine YETP with work-study funds.

Placements include halfway houses,''hospitals, and rehabilitation

centers.

(3) Occupational Resource Center

The ORC provides vocational education for students from

other city high schools. The YETP students number 20 and these

students are bilingual. The program was in operation prior to

YETP and no new youth were added. YETP funds are used to expand

working hours from 6 to 15 per week, as well as to add summer

work. The program also includes workshops on topics such as

budgeting. The work sites emphasize hospitals and health centers,

and seem to largely involve (at least for women) clerical tasks.

(4) Edison Middle School Work Career Exploration

Program

This is an entirely new program due to YETP. It includes

twenty 14-15 year-old students who are older than their grade

and are judged to be potential dropouts. The students work three

hours a day at a variety of sites (hospitals, community agencies,

universities). The in-school teaching is centered around work

with math, reading, etc., taught in the context of jobs. This

program is viewed as knowledge developrgent, and is the only program in any of the three Primes so identified.

-10- 2

Lodi)
(5) There are two additional programs we have not

visited, another middle school program, and a summer program for

special needs students.

ABCD In-School

This is the largest of Boston's YETP programs, enrolling

well over 200 youth in after school work experience in non-profit

placements. Like ocher Boston YETP activities this program was

underway prior to YETP. We have conducted extensive interviews

with ABCD staff but have yet to visit job sites.

ABCD is run in a decentralized manner. In each Boston

community, an APAC (Area Planning Action Council) is responsible

for the operation of the program. Youth are recruited through

the APAC's. The applications are coded and eligibility determined centrally, and selection and placement is done by the

APAC's.

In addition to job placements, ABCD makes available to

the youth workshops on various topics. Also, individual APAC's

add on to the program in various ways. For example, one APAC

runs a "reading club" which is mandatory for youth who are behind grade in their reading.

Transition Employment Enterprises

The "TEE" program (a YCCIP activity) is a supported work

program which sends thirteen youth into the homes of elderly
people to provide various kinds of assistance. TEE runs a

variety of supported work projects in Boston under contract with

MDRC. In addition, TEE is also contracted with HUD to run one

of the demonstration YCCIP programs and has a piece of the Entitlement.

The supported work concept emphasizes graduated stress,

i.e., rising expectations with both rewards and punishments.

The program began with a two-day orientation session, followed by

several weeks of initial training and evaluation. The youth

(joined by 7 of the HUD youth) are now divided into four groups

of five each and are visiting homes in the Allston-Brighton

area.

The program was among the slowest in getting started.

The recruitment process continued well into April. There appears to have been considerable contract confusion with EEPA.

In addition, the program lacked is own recruitment services

and eventually asked ABCD to provide the youth. Finally, the

hiring of supervisors fell behind schedule.

We have yet to observe the crews at work. However, interviews with staff and casual observation of the youth during the

initial evaluation period seem to indicate that the program is

on track.

-12-
Lena Park

The Lena Park program is a Boston YCCIP activity run

by the Lena Park Community Center. The program, for 17 youths,

involves landscaping. The youth are given initial classroom

training in landscaping and then work in Franklin Park (using

some materials donated by the Parks Department) and in private

homes. In addition, a few youth who wish to pursue landscaping

as a career may take community college classes during the summer

and enroll in the Mass. Bay Community College landscaping program in the fall. Finally, a variety of supportive services

are provided; for example, during one of our visits the youth

had just returned from free medical exams at a local clinic.

The program began in earnest on March 1. Prior, to that

almost a month had been devoted to recruitment, with some difficulty being experienced. In addition, the program experienced

the start-up problems normal to a new program: the program

director did not start until late February, a consultant hired

to do the classroom training backed out, and so forth.

The program itself, in addition to its explicit attention

to landscaping skills and work behavior, places major emphasis

upon influencing the self-image and attitudes of the youth. The

director is constantly prodding the youth to be aggressive, to

take control of their behavior. In addition, heavy stress is

laid upon the variety of social services available at the community center.
The classroom training in landscaping is being run by

a Boston firm which has extensive experience in Boston, including a major contract for work with the Transit Authority

on the Southeast Corridor. There is some hope that this contact will help in the post-program placement process.

Worcester YCCIP

This program, unlike YCCIP projects in other cities, is

being run by public agencies, the School System and the City Parks

Department.

The program selected 32 youth from among recent drop-outs.

Referrals came from "adjustment counselors" in the Worcester

Public Schools, as well as a variety of community agencies.

The selection process was handled by staff from the Child Study

Department of the public schools, the project staff, and the

Director of the Parks Department. The youth spent one month in

the Worcester Public Schools "Adult Learning Center" before

beginning to work in the parks.

The youth in this program seemed in our interviews to

be in greater diffic,Ity than those in the other Worcester programs. This 2C F explains the attrition rate: by mid-April,

10 of the original 31 youth had left, and new candidates were

selected to fill the resulting vacancies.

-14-
Project Transition

Project Transition is an in-school work experience

program sponsored by the local CAP agency, the same umbrella

agency which sponsors the summer youth program. The program is

intended to provide 200 slots.

The program is staffed by both the agency and the public

schools. The CAP hired six counselors and the schools wera

given funds to hire four counselors. The function of the school

counselors is to select the youth, arrange for the various

within-school administrative details necessary for their participation, and to visit the work sites to assure that they meet

the standards necessary for academic credit. The Project Transition counselors are responsible for job development and placement.

The program has recruited youth from within the school

system, with special attention to a pool of youth already enrolled in a career experience program entitled "Project Competence" (recently changed to "Project Prepare"). That program

provided counseling and weekly visits to worksites. Presumably

one of the attractions of using this group as a pool was that

they were already oriented to work experience and already had

their schedules at least partly adjusted to being out-of-school

in the afternoons.

The program was a bit slow in getting started, primarily

because of the snow storms which closed the Worcester Public

Schools for 21 days in February. However, by May 17, 145 youths
had been enrolled. An additional difficulty was that of starting an in-school work release program in the middle of the

semester, after students' schedules had already been established.

There were some initial difficulties with arranging placements

because the eligible non-profit employers are saturated with participants from other programs (e.g., Title VI, NYC)

and because non-profit placements sometimes lack the range of

occupations (e.g., construction) of particular interest to some

youth.

YOU, Inc.

YOU, Inc. runs an in-school work experience program very

similar in structure to Project Transition in that the youth

are selected by the schools, funds have been provided for the

school system to hire a counselor, and YOU, Inc. has staff responsible for organizing the program and for placements. The

major difference is that this program takes youth from Worcester's

eleven "alternative" high schools, and from a local correctional

institution.

Alternative high schools are designed for youth who are

having major difficulties in school. These instit.utions are

scattered throughout the city (we visited one ir the basement of

a church) and seem considerably less formal than the regular

schools.

The YOU, Inc. program has been slow in .,ettl

Again, the snow was a problem, suspending scho:;1-1

for almost one month. In addition, as of late April, nc. ;cab
developer had been hired, and the program was distracted by some

difficulties involving a Title I program it administers. In

addition, intake interviews we attended suggest that the program

is exercising considerable care in selecting and evaluating enrollees.

SELECITO TOPICS

This section of the report will take up general topics

of interest and discuss them from the vantage point of all three

Prime Sponsors.

Recruitment of Youth

One of the surprises which has emerged from YEDPA, both

nationally and in the Prime Sponsors under study here, has been

the difficulty experienced in meeting enrollment targets on time.

In part, this can be attributed to various administrative problems which have been encountered, and these issues are described

elsewhere in this report. It is also useful, however, to examine

how youth were recruited into the program. These recruitment

patterns are interesting both because of the light they shed upon

start-up difficulties and because we can try to understand who

does and does not get served by these programs.

The recruitment patterns vary both by Prime Sponsor and

by program. In Worcester, for example, virtually all intake has

been through the schools. For both YETP and YCCIP, youth have

either been recruited by school personnel from among those in

2 A '1 -17-
school or from among very recent dropouts. Thus, the issue of

contacts and community networks does not arise in these programs. Any slowness in recruiting youth can be attributed

either to administrative difficulties, the challenge of creating almost overnight a new CETA/school system relationship,

and to Acts of God such as the snow storm. At this point, there

is very little selectivity (with the possible exception of YOU,

Inc.), with the programs admitting virtually all eligible youth

who apply.

In Cambridge and Boston, there was considerably less

reliance upon the schools. In both communities, the programs

have gotten off to a faster start but this cannot necessarily be

attributed to differences in recruitment patterns. In Boston

much of the YETP programs were already underway, there being already existing Title I programs which were

In Cambridge, the Prime

involved in recruitment

frequently being in the

and intake interviews.

switched into YETP.

Sponsor staff were much more directly

and selection than in other communities,

field, attending recruitment meetings

Among other reasons, the much smaller

size of the Prime Sponsor permitted this interaction.

There is a difference among programs in their access to

informal recruiting networks in their areas. In Boston, for

example, at least one YCCIP program, although nominally run by

a CBO, essentially lacked any ties to local groups from which

it could recruit youth. After considerable indecision about how

-18- 2 t.)
youth were to be fou1,4, the program turned to ABCD to find them

youth.. In Cambridge, one group seems to have strong ties to

street workers in a particular neighborhood and experienced much

less difficulty than other programs in developing sufficient applications.

Some program directors attributed their difficulty in

finding youth to the poor reputation of previous youth programs.

This assertion is difficult to evaluate although it is certainly

true that virtually all of the youth we have interviewed have

been in other programs previously. Another problem is the midyear start which, particularly for youth in school, made fitting

the programs into pre-existing plans difficult. Finally, administrative difficulties of getting into programs may have discouraged youth. One unhappy counselor described the Application proGess:

"On arriving,the kids are givena blue form by the

receptionist. They have to go home to get it

filled out and when they return they are given

a white form. They have to go home to get this

filled out, and when they return, they are given

an appointment for an intake interview which assigns them to a program. They then have another

interview with the program director before they

are admitted."
Start-Up

One source of the low enrollments has been administrative start-up difficulties. In part these were caused by the

enormous time pressures faced by the Prime Sponsors in the fall,

and these difficulties were described in the first interim

report. " A common difficulty was simply administrative overload.

In Boston, for example, the Entitlement program has placed great

pressure upon the Prime Sponsor staff. This in turn has led to

various delays at the program level (slow contracts, ambiguous

direction concerning intake, etc.). This overload has extended

to some of the more ambitious programs. One program, with no

previous experience dealing with the Prime Sponsor, is currently

administering a YCCIP program, a HUD /YCCIP program, and a piece

of the Entitlement. This has undoubtedly contributed to a certain slowness.

Learning to work with school systems is another source

of some start-up difficulties. In Cambridge, for example, there

was some initial confusion over the division of resources which

led to some delays. In Worcester, the entire program is schoolbased and it simply takes time for two institutions to develop

a satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the school calendar

(i.e., vacations) can slow things down and the difficulty in

changing students' schedules mid-semester is an added problem.
Some of the programs under consideration are new and

new programs have bugs to iron out. One YCCIP program, for example, has seen a classroom trainer quit just before the program

was to start (leaving the staff with two empty weeks to fill)

and a planned relationship with a community college suddenly

collapsed. The same organization did not have its youth program

director on board until after recruitment was completed and the

program was about to begin. These sorts of problems seem to

be characteristic of new programs and are unlikely to persist

into a second year.

TARGETING

Income Levels

In Boston, all youth are at the 70% BLS level. In EMHRDA,

94% of the YCIP youth and 93% of the YETP are at the 70% level

with the remainder at 85%. In Worcester, 93% of youth currently

enrolled are at the 70% level (or AFDC) with the remainder at the

85% level.

No one makes a serious effort to verify income levels.

Some program operators argue that they know their communities

and thus know who are eligible. Others argue that CETA income

cut-offs are common knowledge and that there is considerable

"fudging" at work.
School Status

The programs are heavily oriented to in-school youth.

This seems to me to reflect less of a policy decision in most

cases than it is a reflection of what was already in place or

a result of what could be done quickly. In Boston, approximately 76% of YETP and YCCIP youth are in-school; in Worcester

virtually 100% are in-school and in EMHRDA roughly 60% are inol.

It should be noted, however, that the definition of inschool can be tenuous. In Boston, for example, a youth actually

has to apply to the school system in order to drop out. Thus

many youth who never attend remain formally on the rolls. In

fact, some programs which are formally in-school are aimed at

this de facto out-of-school group. In this case the relevant

distinction is between school age and non school age youth.

Special Groups

All programs which we observed in selection meetings made

special efforts to recruit women, sometimes even consciously

stretching eligibility criteria to get women in. There was a

similar concern with minorities but the problem of finding them

was less difficult.

Substitution

The issue of to what extent YEDPA funds represent a net

increase in services available to youth is difficult. Some
evidence available on this point is presented below but some

qualifications should be kept in mind:

1. Even if there is little or no net addition, the

quality of the services may improve as a result

of various kinds of institutional changes.

2. It is not at all clear that Prime Sponsors had

the capacity to gear up as quickly as the legislation and DOL expected and hence in the short

run some substitution should be expected.

3. This last point suggests that, to the extent

`_hat substitution is a major DOL concern, attention should he focused on the implementation of

programs in FY79.

Keeping these qualifications in mind,the evidence in substitution

is as follows:

1. In Boston, the YETP programs are almost entirely

Title I programs which were switched to YETP.

Thus, substitution is virtually 100% with some

exceptions. The first exception is roughly

$300,000 which the Prime set aside to create a

nrw centralized intake and assessment center.

This center was to take the place of a similar

operation run by ABCD. However, the Prime ultimately did not implement the center this year

for a variety of reasons, including administrative concern with more pressing issues, uncertainty about exactly how the Center would fit in

-23-

2 43
with other youth services, and resistance by ABCD.

The other important exception is the $379,000 contracted to the schools under the LEA agreements.

In principle, these are all new services. However,

as can be seen from the description of these programs elsewhere in this report, in son cases these

programs are beefed up versions of activities already in place. Thus, some fraction of the program

cannot be regarded as new.

2. In Worcester, all the evidence points to a net increase of services to youth. A large fraction of

Title I monies was going for youth, and these programs are continuing. The only possible source of

substitution - and this is quantitatively unimportant - is the possibility that youth already in the

school system's Project Competence receive a reduced level of service from that program when they

enroll in YETP.

3. In Cambridge, which historically devoted very little

Title I resources to youth, there has been virtually

no substitution.

Academic Credit

By and large, the programs have been quite successful

in arranging for academic credit. In Worcester, students in

the two in-school programs will get academic credit for their
work. One of the major concerns of the school system has been

to assure that these jobs are "deserving" of academic credit

and the function of the new counselors hired by the schools

under the program will be to visit job sites. Moreover, YCCIP

participants can work towards a GED as an integral part of

their program. In Boston, the YCCIP youth do not get academic

credit, but most programs have GED components and the staff see

themselves trying to get the youth back into regular school.

The ABCD

dividual

rollees.

academic

in-school program makes arrangements with staff of inschools and frequently gets academic credit for enThe programs under Boston's LEA agreement all involve

credit. In Cambridge, the in-school programs provide

credit, while the out-of-school programs do not, although they

provide GED work.

Planning Councils

In general, these councils have had limited roles. This

is certainly the case

council plays no role

formulation.

in Worcester and Cambridge. In Boston, the

in day-to-day or even medium run policy

However, it

between the Prime Sponsor

is an important arena for the struggle

and ABCD. The struggle is essentially

over the relative importance of ABCD in the operation, the Prime

seeking to diminish it and ABCD seeking to protect its position.

As part of this continuing struggle, the Prime abolished last

fall the old planning council and replaced it with a new "blue

ribbon" Council which also served the youth council function.

This Council seemed under the Prime's control and A3CD fought it

-25- 250
strenuously both. in the media and through appeals to the Regional

Office of the Labor Department. The composition of the Council

was broadened somewhat in response to these complaints and ABCD

seems able to use the Council to help protect its position visa-vis the Prime.

Knowledge Development

There is no activity on this front. One senior Prime

Sponsor staff person, upon being asked what activities were knowledge development, picked up a list of programs and laughingly

looked through it to spot (unsuccessfully) a program which might

be called "knowledge development". Another Prime, considering

applying for an "exemplary demonstration grant", called us to

ask for a definition of "knowledge development".

Impact of Other Programs

The major such impact is the Entitlement in Boston.

Obviously, Boston prefers (and should prefer) to have the Entitlement than not but, looked at from a purely YETP/YCCIP perspective, the Entitlement has caused some difficulties:

1. Staff time has been absorbed to the detriment of

YETP/YCCIP. This is true within the Prime Sponsor's office but also in the field. The School

Department person running the LEA agreements is

also the Entitlement liaison. Another example

is a program which has shifted experienced staff

to the Entitlement and placed new staff on YETP.

-2625i
2. There has emerged competition for placements,

with the Entitlement drying up some slots previously available to YETP.

3. Some youth have left YETP programs for the Entitlement, since the latter offers more hours of

work. At least one YETP program has considerably reduced its scope as a result of the Entitlement.

Miscellaneous Issues

1. Overhead. There is little evidence that on any

systematic basis Primes are obtaining materials or

space from the private sector at below market costs.

There are, of course, isolated instances (for example,

a local newspaper donates books to one of ABCD's APAC's).

2. Coordinating Services. In general, the delivery

system of services to youth has not appreciably changed

as a result of these programs. The major exception is

obviously the LEA agreements. In addition, the issue

of centralized intake and coordination is part of the

conflict between ABDC and the Boston Prime Sponsor.

3. Youth Participation. Youth are on the Planning

Councils but, as noted above, these Councils playa minor

role. Beyond that there is little or no youth involvement.
YOUTH EVALUATION PROJECT

Second Interim Report

Evaluator: Randall B. Ripley, Ohio State University

Field Associates: Grace A. Franklin, William J. Lydon

May 22, 1978
1

YOUTH EVALUATION PROJECT: SECOND INTERIM REPORT

This is the second interim report on the implementation of Youth

Community Conservation and Improvement Projects (YCCIP) and Youth

Employment and Training Programs (YETP) in three prime sponsorships in

central and southwestern Ohio: Clark County, Columbus-Franklin County

Consortium, and Greene County. The report follows the outline distributed

by the National Council on Employment Policy on February 24, 1978, with

the addition of a concluding section containing general observations.

The data for this report came from interviews with prime sponsor

staff members responsible for implementation, program operators (including

school officials), advisory council members (including youth members), and a

few participants in some of the programs that have been in place long

enough to afford some meaningful experience that can be tapped;

observation of youth council meetings; and examination of relevant

documents, reports, and records.

The reader of this report needs to be generally aware that

implementation in Clark County as of early May was virtually total,

implementation in Greene County was partial, and implementation in

Columbus had barely begun.

I. KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT

In Clark County only one knowledge development activity is planned:

a monitoring of YCCIP enrollees to see if their decision about staying in

school is related to their ability to earn money while in school (the

target population is potential dropouts). Unsuccessful attempts were made

to him a student from a nearby University to undertake this task. The
2

evaluation activity has now been given 1-th rams (an assistant to the youth programs luLh

duties in May (she had been a secrettr; or the A iini%

of program impact in the only YCCIP prgzaK rivc ii;:aorship is

the focus. Concrete plans for how the conducted have

not yet been developed.

In Columbus knowledge development has never been a priority and may

become a fatality given all of the problems the prime sponsorship has had

in getting any of the programs operational. In theory there will be

research on the impact of participation in the programs on youth's attitudes

and labor market status. But to date no provisions for evaluation have been

made. The position of "youth evaluator" remains vacant. The most

reasonable projection at present is that there will be no knowledge development

in Columbus.

Knowledge development has consistently been of peripheral concern

to Greene County manpower staff. That staff has defined knowledge

development as fairly formal experimental evaluation for which they do not

possess time, money, or competence. However, the staff has tried to

develop programs they consider innovative in part as a result of the

general stress on knowledge development in tote program nationally. The

prime sponsorship has, until early May, run the youth programs with one

half -time staff nember. They are now seeking a full-time staff member and

may do more in the way of evaluating their innovative programs after

that person is in place.

II. CONTENT AND QUALITY OF WORK EXPERIENCE

In Clark County the staff is strongly aware of the stress on

improving the quality of work experience sites. They are working with the

2
3

subcontractors to upgrade quality and both the staff and the subcontractors

feel that their work sites were appropriate. The staff is planning an

important change in FY 79 that should upgrade the quality of work sites

even more: the Springfield city schools (the LEA with the 22% contract)

will be given the authority to certify all work sites as career-related.

Sites not so certified will not be eligible for funding.

Supervision of work experience sites has never been a particular

problem in Clark County. Thus standard practices have continued to be

used in YETP programs. The one TCCIP project (with the county schools)

is using regular maintenance staff as supervisors.

There are no special "youth jobs" or restructuring of jobs for

youth in Clark.

The link between the career assessment component provided by the

Springfield schools (a two-hour session every other week) and work experience

participants supervised by two contractors has been in place since late

March. The mesh seems to be developing well and both participants and

project supervisors are favorably impressed by the career assessment

classes.

Academic credit has not yet been arranged. The CETA staff continues

to emphasize the necessity for it. School officials are moving carefully

but are in no way negative. They wish they had some guidance from the

State Education Department but in the absence of such guidance they feel

comfortable proceeding on their own to develop policies and practices

that they feel will stand up to later scrutiny by the Springfield Board of

Education, the State Education Department, and the North Central Association.

They want to make sure that the arrangements they make for credit cannot

later be successfully challenged as below standard.

Youth participants feel they are learning interpersonal skills in

their jobs although they are less sure about career skills, primarily

vu
4

because they are only now beginning to think about career choices (a

development facilitated by the new career assessment component). Program

operators confirm that most of the enrollees have given little thought to

career options to date (or at least prior to the career assessment

classes).

The YCCIP project is a project with tangible output: maintenance and

beautification of physical facilities in all county schools.

In Columbus only one YCCIP project was functioning by early May and

so comments on quality of jobs necessarily have to be limited to that

project. The director of the project was enthusiastic about the jobs in

it and the strong emphasis on good supervision. The CETA staff knew

little about the project. In fact, given the general problems of getting

anything in place the CETA staff as yet appears to have developed no

particular commitment to the new youth programs at all.

Supervision at the one operational project is good; extra supervisors

who are union members were hired. No special consideration was given to

increasing supervision on the in-school work sites developed by staff to

use the 22% LEA money.

There is no special class of youth jobs being created. The one YCCIP

project in place does restructure some jobs for youth, however.

The only YETP activity in place at all (and that only partially) by

early May involved work experience sites for in-school youth (and used the

22% LEA money). The schools played no part in developing these jobs; the

CETA staff developed them and simply treated them as extensions of work

experience programs already in place. No special attention was given to

meshing education and work sites. Where any fit existed it was random.

So few youth are actually enrolled in Columbus as yet (and the few

who are enrolled have only been in the program a very short time) that

interviews with them necessarily must be deferred. The status of

2' "%-J '
5

academic credit is confused, in keeping with most aspects of the Columbus

program. No uac is sure how to arrange for it or who is supposed to do it.

The two YCCIP projects do provide tangible outputs. The regional

'ice of DOL objected to one YCCIP project that was first proposed

(youth tutoring youth) because it did not provide tangible output and

Columbus substituted another project for it.

Greene County_ CETA staff and project operators stress quality of jobs

and strong supervision. These attitudes are widespread and are being

implemented concretely. For example, the staff went to the Employment

Service to locate good supervisors and ES took responsibility for locating

them and then for providing them with orientation and training. Two

supervisors were hired for the 12 enrollees in the two YCCIP projects. For

YETP enrollees (20 in OJT and 40 split between two work experience

programs) regular supervisors already at the sites are used.

Greene has not created a separate class of jobs reserved for youth,

and no particular job restructuring seems to be taking place.

Out-of-school participants receive classroom training at a joint

vocational high school at night or tutoring. They are also encouraged

to pursue a GED or return to school. In-school participants in work

experience each have a case manager and an education curriculum specialist

working in tandem with guidance counsellors who assemble curriculum

packages that must be certified by the JVS superintendent as "sound."

The question of academic credit for work experience has caused some

tension in Greene County. The vocational superintendent believes that

state attitudes distinguishing between "academic credit" and "credit

toward graduation" create confusion. The latter can be used when

certified by vocational schools and does not have to be supported by 120

hours of classroom instruction per unit, as is the case with the former.
6

However, the tone of memos emanating from the state department of education

is, in the view of individuals in Greene County, indicative of suspicion

of manpower programs on the part of state education officials.

Counsellors and CETA staff both indicate that the participants

generally are enrolled almost exclusively for the immediate financial

rewards and not because of career aspirations. The few parti.:_pants

interviewed seemed to have a stronger notion of career goals and the

relation of their YEDPA-supported jobs to those goals but those few are

perhaps atypical of all of the participants.

III. YOUTH PARTICIPATION

In Clark County the four youth members of the youth subcouncil

were chosen primarily on the basis of being known personally by someone

already involved with manpower programs. Only one of the four is a

participant and disadvantaged (and she was chosen because she is president

.of the council of the major community-based deliverer).

Youth participation at both the subcouncil and the full MAC is good

in terns of attendance. And several of the youth members feel free to

talk. When interviewed, they expressed positive perceptions of the reception

the adult members of the subcouncil and full council had accorded them.

They have no particular programmatic goals. One member had a personal goal

of learning more about government and politics generally. In general,

they feel flattered to be on the council. The non-disadvantaged members

feel they understand the problems of the disadvantaged from having gone

to school with some of them.

The CETA staff and the adult members of the MAC and subcouncil have

all tried to make the youth members feel welcome and have stressed that

they are full voting members of the subcouncil of which they constitute 50%).

2.k..." )
7

Participant views of pre-YEDPA programs and YEDPA programs were not

solicited because the YETP programs are extensions and expansions of what

was in place under Title I before YEDPA was passed. The YCCIP project

has only been under way a few weeks and so participants were not interviewed.

Columbus youth representatives are formally appointed by the prime

sponsor. Nominations were sought by a council liaison person on the

CETA staff from a variety of sources. Those names were sent to the CETA

director for approval, and from there went to the mayor. The appointment

letters were then sent out.

Youth participation has been extremely limited. The full MAC in

Columbus has never had an important role in program implementation so

there is no precedent for active involvement. Generating active youth

participation on the youth council is not a priority for the Columbus

CETA staff, and it is unlikely to become a priority.

In Greene County two high schoo] students who have been SPEDY

enrollees in the past were selected to serve on the youth council of 13

members because staff judged them to have been good participants in the

program and predicted they would be interested members of the council.

The two members come to the monthly meetings but do not, at least as

yet, participate much. The two youth members do value their membership,

however, not for any particular programmatic reasons but because of personal

recognition they feel they have received as members. The members have no

programmatic goals or criticisms.

The CETA staff is considering the icier: of broadening the scope of

youth participation in YEDPA by employing a few "peer :ounsellors" at the

work experience program run by a community action agency.

The programs are too new yet to ascertain whether participants think

they are getting something new and different from what previous CETA

programs offered. Counsellors for the operators predict that they will
8

not see any differences because the participants tend to think of any job

as just another job. However, several of the participants interviewed saw more

differences than the staff predicted. They were particularly supportive

of having the community action agency as a deliverer because they

felt it was more sensitive to the needs of disadvantaged youth than the

schools, welfare department, or juvenile court authorities.

IV. TARGETING

Clark County intends to serve 100% disadvantaged youth with both

YETP and YCCIP. Of the 173 YETP participants served between January 1,

1978, and March 31, 1978, 100% were reported as economically disadvantaged

and 65% at the 85% or less lower living standard. If enough economically

disadvantaged youths cannot be located to fill the 34 YCCIP slots then the

staff will move to non-disadvantaged participants rather than letting

the slots go vacant.

Clark County staff is very careful about having verification paperwork

completed and in the files. They check with the welfare office or

employers of parents to verify income data.

The one special target population in Clark County is juvenile

offenders. About 90% of 26 slots from one program run through the county

juvenile court are reserved for offenders (the others are referrals from

a children's home).

The structure of the Clark program prevents comparison of community

based organization targeting with the targeting by other deliverers because

a CBO is the major general deliverer for YETP and there is a central intake

unit that, in effect, monitors targeting for the total system.

There se-ms to be every reason to believe that Clark County is

genuinely serving economically disadvantaged youths. In addition, the

2

V A.
9

program is also serving a number of youths with additional social and

motivational problems.

Columbus intends to serve only youths who are economically

disadvantaged and meet the 70% or less lower living standard. The March 31,

1978, reports to DOL show 92% of YETP and 95% of YCCIP enrollees to be econemically disadvantaged. All of the enrollees in both programs are reported

as bein ;' at 857 or less of the lower living standard.

Verification to present consists of taking the applicarits' word about

income level and then having the applicant sign a statement indicating the

information is accurate. When and if the planned youth assessment center

is put into operation these procedures may change.

Columbus has targeted economically disadvantaged youth with a

preference for minorities and dropouts. Because the bulk of the program

is not yet operational there have been no special outreach and recruitment

efforts.

The prime sponsor is running all YETP programs itself (including the

22% LEA program, in effect) and so there is no way to compare CBO and

non-CBO performance in reaching the target population. The city has

always run in-school programs (even in Neighborhood Youth Corps days)

and so no comparison has ever been possible.

The commitment to erve economically disadvantaged youth in Columbus

is gengine. The problem has been that few of the programs are in operation

to serve anybody yet.

Greene County is also committed to serving the economically

disadvantaged. They want to limit all participants to below the 85% lower

living standard. The first quarterly report from YETP, with only 20

participants enrolled, showed that 957 of them were economically

disadvantaged and below the 85% lower living standard.
10

The staff for both the prime sponsor and the community action

agency emphasized the completeness of their records on eligibility.

A point system at intake is used to give special preference to three

groups: women, ex-offenders, and slow learners. Outreach efforts to

find individuals in these categories include school visitations by

counsellors, the use of newspaper articles, and close liaison with the

juvenile court system.

The commitment of both the prime sponsor staff and the community

action agency deliverer to serve the disadvantaged is genuine.

Conversations with participants confirmed that they were indeed

economically disadvantaged.

V. SUBSTITUTION

There is no definitive way to measure substitution. There certainly

is no simple way. Table 1 reports the percent of participants in Titles

I, II, and VI who were under 22 years of age at the end of the second

quarters of the last three fiscal years (December 31, 1975; March 31, 1977;

and March 31, 1978).

When the figures for Title I are examined it can be seen that service

in Clark County for young people has declined slightly after the passage

of YEDPA, it has increased in Columbus, and it has decreased considerably

in Greene County. When the PSE titles are examined, except for Title II

in Greene, service to young people increased in all three prime sponsorships

for both titles between FY 77 and FY 78 and, with the same exception of

Title II in Greene, approximates the same level of service (in percentage

terms) as in FY 76.

In none of the three prime sponsorships were there any attempts to

add youth enrollees to Title I in the Fall of 1977 so they could be

'shifted to YEDPA in January, 1978.
TABLE 1: PERCENT OF PARTICIPANTS UNDER 22 YEARS OF AGE, THREE OHIO PRIME SPONSORSHIPS,

SECOND QUARTER OF FY 76, 77, and 78

Quarter Ending

MIIN.M01.64.011Mml...11. +.1.1101...............11

December March 1977 March 1978 .111 vhda ORMIMMMOIM

Title I

Clark County 51 51

Columbus/Franklin Co. 41 46

Greene County 43 43

Title II

Clark County 24 20

Columbus/Franklin Co. 21 13

Greene County 19 16

Title VI

Clark County 24 16 Columbus/Franklin Co. 17 15

Greene County 27 18

0'1

47

54

30

24

24

9

23

20

24
12

In Clark County there is a commitment on the part of the CETA staff

not to substitute. There is also a commitment to year-round comprehensive

planning and operations for all participants for all titles. The second

commitment, in a very real sense, makes substitution a meaningless

issue in this prime sponsorship. The staff wants to use available monies

to make the biggest possible dent in their total universe of need. They

will, of,course, proceed in accord with federal regulations but, to the

extent possible, they want to resist proceeding as if they were dealing

with unrelated categorical programs. Congress and, to some extent, DOL

seem bent on reinstituting categorical programs and, more important,

categorical mentality, but those developments are not popular in Clark County

and not in accord with the goals of the prime sponsor.

Services for youth remain about the same in nature as before YEDPA

(except a larger number of youth are being served), with the very important

exception of the addition of the public schools' career assessment component.

There have been no union problems (and basically no union involvement)

in Clark County.

In Columbus there seems to be genuine commitmen! -educ: Title

I services to youth just because of the creation of the nor.; youth programs.

There has been no change in mix of services.

Unions have not raised the issue of substitution. IT- have reviewed

and agreed to YETP and YCCIP plans. Union represel,,A1 are on bcth

the MAC and the YPC and support the plans of the prie sporaorship.

Unions are involved and cooperating iignificantly in a home repai r

and weatherization YCCIP project run by a comuunity action agency. The

project guarantees transition to apprenticeship for program complr!:::rs.

Despite the figures for Greene County for Title I it does not se=

reasonable to ague that substitution is deliberately occurAing. CE1A

staff, subcontractors, and 1.-fluential Youth Council members all assert they

2 '%) 0
13

specifically intend not to substitute. Their assertion is supported by

the fact that there has been no change in the mix of services provided youth

with Title I monies. It seems reasonable to guess that other factors accounted

for the change in youth participation and that it did not reflect a conscious

attempt to substitute.

A union objection to a small YCCIP project in Yellow Springs on a

college campus was successful in having the project mo.,-:d to another

sponsor but the objection was not really on the grounds of substitution,

since the project would clearly not be undertaken ex.pt with CETA support.

VI. OVERHEAD

The only contributed resource in Clark Count/ le rent -flee space

from the county courts for the work experience program aimed orimarily

at juvenile offenders.

No concrete ties with agencies other than funded de!lverers have

been developed. The employment and training system in Curk County--both

in genera] and specifically for youth--is quite self-t_ontained and selfsufficient.

In Columbus the major part of YETP--a plarued youth assessment and

training center--has not yet begun. Staff ma; attempt to generate links

between the center and other organizations such as the Employment

Service but they have articulated nothing; concrete yet.

The community action agency weatherization YCCIP project takes

advantage of Community Service Administration tsterials for weatherization.

The community action agency itself developed this resource and CETA

staff had nothing to do with it.

The Greene County CETA staff had been hoping that materials for a

YCC11' project would be donated by a high school in the County and that
14

supervisory funds for the project would come from both school funds and

village funds. In fact all of these hopes were realized: between them

the school and village contributed $17,000 for supervisory costs and

$19,000 for materials (less than $18,000 in YCCIP funds were involved).

The community action agency is getting some solar units at less than

cost for part of its wioterizatioa YCCIP project.

Central State University hAls agreed to provide tutoring in basic

skills to participants under CAs auspices of the special education

department at no cost to the prime sponsorship.

The community action agency has a job developer paid for with ES

funds. He develops jobs for out-of-school participants as well as for

other clients of the agency.

The Greene County Joint Vocational High School has a nonfinancial

agreement with the prime sponsorship to provide coordination of the

program with other county high schools, to arrange for high school credit

for participants, to certify that educational experiences and work sites

are consistent with each other, to assist in recruiting and screening

potential participants, and to monitor the entire system so that services

will not be duplicated.

Understandably, the Greene County staff is pleased with what they

termed "incredible" community support for their efforts. They hope to

add additional resources on the same basis from other sources in the future.

VII. INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE

In Clark County the 22% agreement with the LEA (Springfield city

schools) was successfully and rather rapidly negotiated. The negotiations

resulted in a two-phase program for FY 78, to be followed by phase three
15

in the autumn of 1978. The third phase will explicitly build on what was

learned in phase one (which rune from late March until the end of school in

June; phase 2 is a summer program).

In phase one the Career Development unit in the city Echools provides

career assessment classes for most in-school and out-of-school participants

in the programs run by the Urban League (about 852 of the slots) and a program affiliated with the county juvenile court. These classes meet for

two hours every other week and range from 15 to 30 in size. Participants not

in career assessment are enrolled in a special reading program subcontracted

with the local Catholic high school, or they are "graduates" of the career assessment program (it was run on an experimental basis before YEDPA funds

were available in autumn, 1977).

Phase two in the summer will have two parts. The first part will

provide work sites in community projects coupled with work at the school

board's pre-vocational laboratory (already existing) and special tutoring

in reading and math for those who need it. Another 150 participants will be

enrolled in some sort of prelude to autumn, 1978--a bridge program to cover the

summer. The details of the program fOr the 150 students were being worked

out between prime sponsor staff and school board staff in mid-May.

Phase three will look much like phase one with whatever variations seem

warranted by the spring experience. (Students in the spring will be "debriefed"

by questionnaire and in other ways. A single full-time teacher teaches all of

the classes in phase one and will teach them in phase three and so he should

be in a good position to codify and act on what he has learned from the spring

experience. In addition, the prime sponsor staff is planning to add two

important powers to the school board's mandate in the autumn: to certify all

work sites as career-related and to remove participants from the total

program who sr, not performing satisfactorily in the career assessment

component.

21.0
16

Some minor problems were created by the non-congruence of the JLTA

fiscal year and the school's fiscal, year and academic year but these -e solved.

Academic credit seems likely to be arranged, but it will be done 1. y

and cautiously (see earlier consents in Section II).

The school board gets only 22% and is quite content with that for

the foreseeable future. rchool board staff members articulate a desire to do

a good job with the 22% before even thinking about expansion and, in fact,

feel that other agencies, especially community-based organizations, should

be heavily involved.

The schools are dealing in a new way with the special clientele

generated by the two workexperience programs. As indicated, they hired a

full-time staff member with considerable experience to head up the program.

There are 15 out-of-school slots in the Urban League program and some of the

juvenile court slots are also used for out-of-school youth.

No particular linkages to post-secondary educational programs have been

established.

The schools career assessment segment is explicitly aimed at generating

occupational information. The juvenile court program, in addition to sending

its participants to the schools' career assessment program, also provides

additional career information for its participants weekly session.

There has been no union involvement with YEDPA programs in Clark County.

No new links have been forged with the private business sector. The

one attempt to do so--allocating ten slots to the Urban League program for

OJT- -has already been abandoned because no commitments could be obtained.

Columbus pursued an unusual route with the schools in Franklin County.

Essentially, the schools were given no latitude on how to use "their" 22%

but were instead told what to do by the staff. Originally, there were

some meetings with the representatives from the Columbus public schools and
17

the prime sponsor staff. The initial position of the schools was that they

should simply take the money (over $330,000) and do what they wanted with it.

The staff resisted giving away control. They sought ideas from the schools,

but the only ideas that were forthcoming involved using the money to support

already existing OWE and OWA programs. Staff from the prime sponsorship

resisted this effort to use the money simply to subsidize the schools' regular

budget. Instead, the staff drafted a nonfinancial agreement and sent copies

to all 17 school districts in the county to look over, react to, and sign.

Thirteen had signed by January. Only the four wealthiest districts in the

county resisted. The nonfinancial agreement primarily results in more school

kids enrolling in the in-school work experience program run by the prime

sponsorship staff itself and long established with Title I funds. Eighty

percent of the money will be spent for additional slots. Twenty percent

will be used for a training program for all high school vocational counselors,

to be run by prime sponsor staff next fall.

The schools, with the four excepticns, acquiesced in this arrangement

because, ultimately, they did not have any better ideas and did not seem

to care very much about the new programs anyway.

No problems arose in Columbus because of incongruent planning cycles

for the prime sponsorship and the schools since the prime sponsorship is

running the entire 22% program itself.

There is a lot of confusion in Columbus about academic credit, as previously mentioned. Prime sponsorship staff believes that Ohio law prevents

academic credit from being granted. The director of the major YCCIP project

(from a community action agency) says that both the YCCIP enrollees and

Title I out-of-school enrollees (a program run by the same agency) are

already getting credit. What is clear is that no single policy or practice

exists.

2 ;
18

The LEA agreements in Columbus are limited to the 22%. Out of school

youths are served through the YCCIP projects and will be served by the

planned assessment center, once it is operational.

Since the LEA 22% is being used to expand an already existing Title I

in-school work experience program by about 300 slots and since the prime

sponsorship is in control of all decisions, the schools have no incentive

to take an active part in the program and they do not do so. The only

school involvement stems from the requirement that school counselors certify

that each work site fits a youth's career aspirations. But this is a very

loose mandate. Counselors' assessments do not seem to be rigorous and "fit"

is not really defined. And since prime sponsor staff monitoring of these

assessments does not exist there is no effective "career-related" requirement

in Columbus.

No new links have been established with post-secondary schools. One

indirect effort will be made to improve occupational information--the

counselor upgrading workshop that will be held in September after school

begins that will focus on how to prepare youths to go on the job market.

The workshop will also include some attention to occupational growth areas.

Staff hopes to get some individuals from the private sector to help run

the workshop.

One project operator (a community action agency) involved unions

concretely in a YCCIP project, as explained earlier. The prime sponsor

staff did not participate in developing the agreement.

There are no links with the private business sector thus far except

for the nominal membership of a few business members on the youth council

and MAC. There is vague talk of using the youth assessment center to forge

links with private business but the assessment center itself is still at

the stage of wish rather than reality.

2",
19

Int Greene County the LEA agreement with the prime sponsorship is also

nonfinancial--in this case between the prime sponsorship and one school,

the County Joint Vocational High School. But, unlike Columbus, the school

seems to take the activities agreed to in the nonfinancial agreement

seriously (these were specified in the preceding section),

Ni particular problems of incongruent planning cycles hindered the

school-prime sponsorship cooperation in Greene County. However, differing

attitudes in the manpower and education communities were recognized by

various participants. At the local level these differing attitudes did not

seem to be impeding the program. There were still common terms to be

worked out for describing programs (for example, the two communities

understand completely different phenomena to be represented by the term

"indirect placement"). There was also concern over the apparent lack of

interest in the potential tie between schools and CETA evidenced on the part

of the state Education Department.

There was also awareness at the local level that vocational counselors

in three different institutional settingstraditional high schools, vocational

high schools, and community based organizations--looked at the world in

very different terms. Their training and orientations are different- -

traditional high school counselors focusing on college preparation, vocational

education counselors focusing on employment, and CBO counselors focusing

on resolving environmental and personal pathologies with a number of tools,

including career training.

High school credit for work experience is recommended by the JVS to the

"home" high school for each in-school student after appropriate certifications

that meet requirements set by the State Department of Education. The state

requirements, however, are unclear and variously interpreted so that a

self-confident Joint Vocational School ,:an set many of its own standards

and practices.

2 "
20

Academic credit for YETP activities covered by the 22% LEA agreement is

being arranged. To date academic credit for programs covered by the

other 78% is not being arranged. Academic credit for the YCCIP enrollees

appeared to be in the process of being arranged by one high school in the

village where the projects would take place.

Half of the forty slots in the YETP program run by the JVS are for

out-of-school youth.

At present the schools are just absorbing their new relationship with

the prime sponsorship and are not moving beyond it.

Central State University has shown an interest in the new youth programs

but that interest emerged independently of the LEA agreement.

Widely available occupational information is in short supply in Greene

County. Work has begun to set aside space in the city library for collecting

such information.

Unions were consulted on the definition of YCCIP jobs and, after vetoing

one project, approved the two that were finally funded. Greene County is

in the middle of talking with the carpenters union about an agreement

whereby the manpower office would send referrals to their pre-apprenticeship

program, who would then be in line for acceptance into the apprenticeship

program. Some of these referrals may come from YEDPA programs if the agreement

is reached.

Part of the YETP ptvgram in Greene County involves 20 OJT slots for

youth run by the Employment Service. This program has not yet made any

concrete progress and is the only attempt to reach the private sector with

the program.
21

VIII MOOSING DELIVERY AGENTS

In Clark County only one community-based organization is participating

in the program. That organization--under different names -and sponsorships-- has a long history of delivering employment and training services in the

county. The level of activity of the CB0 has increased under YEDPA, not

so much in its total number of work experience slots but in terms of the

increased services offered the participants, particularly the career

assessment classes. There is no way to compare the performance of this

CB0 with other deliverers since it delivers all of the YETP program except

for a small segment targeted principally for juvenile offenders and since

there is a central intake unit for all programs run by the prime sponsorship.

There are some other potential deliverers that are interesting to the

prime sponsor staff, but the judgment was made to stay with existing

deliverers rather than splitting up the money in too many directions.

There will be some experimentation with additional deliverers on a small

scale in the summer program in 1978. The prime sponsorship is also seeking

state 4% money to fund some special programs for youth, although their chances

of success are low given the governor's inclination to use 4% money mainly

for state agencies and a few other programs that are politically visible

and rewarding.

In Columbus CBO participation in planning was limited to minimal

compliance with the regulations. There was good response by CBO's to

the RFPs for both YETP and YCCIP. Staff initially wanted a CBO to deliver

the youth assessment center-- the mainstay of the YETP program. However

the CETA director vetoed this preference and instead determined that the

youth assessment center would be an in-house operation. (It is stir in

the planning stages and a long way from being operational.)
22

CEOs are involved in program delivery only in YCCIP. The major project

is run by the major community action agency in the city, which has also

delivered manpower services for a long time. The other project is run by

a long-established local community house, although it has not previously

delivered manpower services. Both organizations are qualified to run their

projects and the larger of the two was the first part of the entire youth

operation to be operational (and it is still the principal part that is

operational). In terms of total YEDPA dollars available, CBOs have only

a relatively small share (between 17 and 18%). Many program decisions,

however, seem to have been made on grounds other than competence of potential

deliverers.

There are no valid data on who beat reaches target populations in

Columbus- -prime sponsor staff or CBOs. There is some evidence that both

can reach target populations but that the decisions about who deliverers

what are made much more for local political reasons and for organizational

"turf" reasons.

No specific service deliverers are conspicuously absent in Columbus

although it certainly seems reasonable to think that a CBO might have handled

the startup of the youth assessment center more efficiently than is being

done by the prime sponsorship, which has made little progress to date.

In Greene County the one viable CEO for delivering manpower services

(the community action agency) is involved in both YCCIP and YETP. The

county also has an OIC (now primarily in name) that was a manpower deliverer

but has fallen on hard times because it has been defunded for poor management

and excessive administrative costs. The OIC submitted a statement that

they intended to bid on part of the YEDPA system but later decided not to.

Effectively, OIC is now defunct in Greene County in terms of delivering

manpower services.

2''I
23

The active community action agency appears both experienced and competent.

It has been in the county for many years, has established contacts with all

county agencies (including the schools and ES), has its own outreach program,

and has shared testing and assessment for CETA Title I services with

another deliverer.

IX. COORDINATING SERVICES FOR YOUTH

In Clark County it is premature to judge whether the youth inventory

will really result in the meshing of services for youth. Immediate results

have been a more widespread distribution of the RFP for the summer program,

he planned funding of some additional summer deliverers, and the identification of some potential YEDPA deliverers for the future.

There are no non-financial agreements with any organizations in Clark

County.

The prime sponsorship uses its regular central intake unit for YEDPA

participants.

There is a high degree of attention in 'lark County to meshing the

year-round youth program with the summer program. The summer program will

be used in part to continue services for some of the youth enrolled in YETP.

A status change notice will transfer these individuals into a concurrent

enrollment status. They will then continue working and receiving income,

primarily to encourage them to return to school in the autumn. Counseling

services will also continue to be provided for these individuals.

In Columbus the practical utility of the youth services inventory is

not evident. Until the assessment center is running, coordination with

any other programs is impossible by definition.

There are no agreements with any other institutions beyond the nonfinancial agreement with schools in the county to cover the 22% mandate.

2
24

In a sense the reason the Columbus YETP program is essentially not

operating yet is because the prime sponsorship decided to create a major

new staff unit for intake, assessment, referral, and possibly training of

YEDPA participants. The enterprise is a long way from having much reality.

A youth coordinator was named only in March and by late April had a staff of

one secretary. That is hardly adequate to run an assessment and

training center that is projected to cost close to $1 million in FY *;3

alone. (It seems highly unlikely, of course, that Columbus can, in fact,

spend this money by September 30, 1978.)

The youth coordinator, who has experience in running SPEDY programs,

is responsible for coordinating 1978 (AEDY with YETP. Given the lack of

much action on YETP, coordination is primaril a moot question. Likewise,

coordination with Title I is also moot at this point and a question for the

future, and little thought appears to have been given to it thus far.

In Greene County the youth service inventory is not considered useful

by the staff.

The staff has focused on using non-financial agreements for services

and his kept monetary transactions in its own hands even for deliverers

that are, in effect, funded such as ES, the joint vocational school, and

the community action agency. There are additional non-financial agreements

with some of These agencies specifying roles and there is also non-financial

agreement with Central State University.

The community action agency haJ created a new office combining intake,

counseling, and general coordination specifically for youth.

Greene County is seeking a full -time youth coordinator to replace the

half-time coordinator tij now employ (this decision has to do with the

workload, not with a negative judgment about the incumbent, who will be

transferred to other part-time duties). Details of YETP-SPEDY coordination
25

ideally will await the hiring and arrival of a new full-time youth

coordinator. However, two basic decisions have been made. First, since

YEDPA programs do not include participants less than 16 the summer program

will emphasize service to 14 and 15 year olds. Second, since there is a

stress on out-of-school youth in the year-round program the summer

program will stress service to youth who are in school and who are expected

to return in the autumn (and the program will encourage that return). It

seems likely that either the exclusive or at least principal deliverer of

the summer program will be the community action agency that is

major deliverer of YEDPA services. This fact should facilitate

between year-round and summer programs.

X. KEEPING FUTURE OPTION 07'g

In Clark County no major structersk adaptae_c,rs 'iave been made to

accommodate YEDPA. Existing structures have reached 3011011 agreements au

how to proceed but the structures themselves have not changed. Procedures

to increase both youth and community involvement in the programs have beet

faithfully followed by the staff and have resulted in identifying some new

interests and agencies that may have importance in the future for

delivering services. This prime spouPorAip vi:tens unlikely to abandon

either the new ties or the ';;7-7 proce,lures =lens resources vanish altogether

and/or the procedural mar'!ce from DOL and Congress prescribes different

approach to involvement.

In Columbus the major planned structural a&-ptation is tne youth

assessment center, which as of early May exists only on raper. Alarming 1.L

comes into being, its life is probably dependent on YEDPA dollars although

in principle it could be run with other CETA resources if p:dgec to be an

innovation worth keeping.

2 ;
Procedural charges mandated by YEDPA are unlikely to survive LoluMbus

if the mandatf vanishes because they have been viewed by staff as lrimarily

administrative burdens and annoyances. Columbus has always treater mandates

about broadened participation in CETA in a perfunctory and formalist!c

way and their YEDPA performance is, predictably, no different.

In Greene County no major structural adaptations have taken place.

Some of the procedural changes seem likely to survive a YEDPA phase out

although a separate youth council might well die. Right now the youth

council has a mandate to include other youth programs in its purview but

without a YEDPA -like core for Its activities it would seem likely to lose

motivation. In a sens:', YEDPA has awakened Greene County individuals and

institutions to youth employment and training heeds of which they were

not particularly aware before. That awakening would probably survive a

phase-out of YEDPA or its replacement by other structures and mandates.

RI. GENERAL OBSERVATIUNS

1. The key to relatively rapid implementatio- of YEDPA in these

three prime sponsorships is, not surprisingly, - competent, full- -time youth

staff with backing from the CETA staff director. All three conditions we le

met in Clark County and implementation is well advan'ld. The only

condition missing in Greene county was a full- t -0 youth coordinator. The

nature of the work dictated that a part-time coordinator coiald not move

as quickly with implementation, although considerable ;.roggess was made.

In Columbus none of the three conditions was met until March, when a full Elie

youth coordinator was hired. But that coordinator still does not have much

help and, given the size of the program, cannot be expecte, to function

effectively alone. Backing from the CETA director is missing. As a -asult

of these problems implementation in Columbus is virtually non - existent except

400
27

in the case of YCCIP, which was awarded to two community based organizations,

and a routine expansion of work experience with the 222 LEA money.

2. Not much is happening concretely on the knowledge development front.

The mandate from Congress and DOL is viewed as vague in itself and it is

generally treated vaguely and as a low to nonexistent priority.

3. There is considerable stress in two of the three prime sponsorships

(Clark and Greene) on improving the quality of work experience work sites and

supervision.

4. Youth participation, where it exists, is largely symbolic. In Clark

County youth participation on the youth subcouncil might eventually have

some marginal programmatic impact just because Clark County takes its

council very seriously. Peer counselling in Greene County, if instituted,

could have some importance. In Columbus the one innovative use of youth- -

a proposed YCCIP project with youth tutoring yorth--was successfully opposed

by the regional office of the Department of Labor. No other initiatives

seem likely.

In general, the youth councils are likely to be about as important

and influential as the MACS themselves have been. "Community traditions"

about CAMPS and CETA councils (even though only a few years old) will prevail.

Thus the aark youth subcouncil can be important; the Columbus council

stands little chance of developing importance; and the prospects of Greene

council falls somewhere in between.

5. All three prime sponsorships are doing well iv reaching economically

disadvantaged participants (with the obvious reservatiol that since much

of the Columbus program is not yet operational it is reaching only relatively

few people. for the dollars available). It should be noted that the three

staffs understand the criteria for defining economically disadvantaged

participants in three different ways and their quarterly reports for March

reflect those different understandings. If this is a general phenomenon
28

nationally the Department of Labor should address itself to clarification

of definitions and reporting practices.

6. There is no evidence of intent to substitute YEDPA services for

Title I services that would otherwise go to youth. At first blush, some

aggregate figures in Greene County lend credence to a guess that

substitution is occuring. But probing of programmatic decisions an commitments

suggest that the aggregate figures are either Ale result of other forces or

random variations.

At present this evaluator does not have a methodology with which he

would feel comfortable for "measuring" substitution. Qualitative and

quantitative monitoring of service patterns and of intent and motivations

seems more appropriate for the near future than putting heavy reliance

on numbers that may either mask substitution or, alternatively, suggest

it exists where it does not. The ultimate measures of the impact of YEDPA

will, of course, have to do with youth unemployment rates, school dropout

rates, and similar phenomena. Naturally, when and if those measures are used

the question of causality becomes paramount.

7. The experience in Greene County suggests that an active effort to

solicit in -hind, below cost, and free goods and services can generate a good

deal.

8. All three of the prime sponsors did not build ikailingful ties with

other institutions but when they tried seriously they showed it was not

terribly difficult to do so. The emerglng relationship between the Clark

County CETA office and the Springfield public s&'aols is a good example of

what can be achieved. Similarly, the Greene County CETA office-joint

vocational school relationship also promises to serve youth well.

All three prime sponsorships have had little success in attracting

private sector participation in the program. Clark County is, for example,

already abandoning its experiment of designating ten OJT sltAs for youth.
29

9. In all three prime sponsorships community based organizations

appear to be good deliverers of youth services. Only in Columbus does

the prime sponsor, for political reasons, appear to be giving them a smaller

share of the program than would seem warranted on the basis of comparative

competence.

10. Meshing YEDPA with a broader array of youth services is not a

high priority in any of the three prime sponsorships, although both Clark

and Greene have begun serious explorations. Coordination between YEDPA and

SPEDY is proceeding well in both Clark and Greene. Such coordination is a

moot question in Columbus since most of the YEDPA programs are not yet

operational.

11. In Clark and Greene new structures to deal with YEDPA have not

been created but new ties, patterns of participation, and awarenesses were.

There seem likely to become permanent parts of the employment and training

landscape almost regzrdless of what the future holds for YEDPA or YEDPA -like

successor programs. In Columbus nothing new has hz?pened as yet and the demise

of YEDPA would probably mean the demise of anything seemingly new that had

been created.
A SECOND REPORT ON THE EXPERIENCES OF COOK COUNTY,

crrY OF CHICAGO AND ROCKFORD CONSORTIUM UNDER YEDPA

Myron Roomkin

Associate Professor

of Industrial Relations

Northwestern University

Janet Weeks

Research Assistant

Northwestern University

This report is based on developments as of the second week in May 1978
I. Knowledge Development

As stated in the first report, the three studied prime sponsors have

taken widely different approaches to the knowledge development requirements

of YEDPA. These differences have persisted, despite shifts in emphasis

among the goals of YEDPA at the federal level. Rockford remains committed

to knowledge development as an objective rivaling others in the act. Chicago's

activities, though conducted in good faith, are characterized by a desire to

comply with the regulations. Cook County for the moment not dissatisfied

with the existing knowledge gleaned from pre-YEDPA programs, has left the

matter to those agents it has funded.

Rockford

Rockford's early attempts at planning showed it that better research

skills were needed. These were brought to the planning team with the hiring

of a consultant from Northern Illinois University.

Between staff and consultant, a remarkable document was prepared and

distributed to sub-contractors. The manual* charges each sub-contractor to

understand the knowledge development goals of YEDPA and the relations to

those goals of each subcontractor's activity.

The manual defines both long-term and short-term research goals.

Short-term goals include the following:

Rockford Consortium for Comprehensive Employment anJ Training, Knowledge

Development Coals: Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects of 1977,

Rockford, 1978.

1
1. the feasibility of, and processes in, establishing large

scale efforts for in-school youth and returning dropouts;

2. the number and characteristics of youths enrolled in programs

and of those rejected;

3. the kinds of work being performed by youth, and training and

other services being provided to them;

4. the length of stay in programs and reasons for termination;

and

5. the costs of various approaches. (p. IIB)

Over the long-run, research will answer the question "what works best, for

whom, and under what conditions." More specifically:

1. the value of the work produced by enrollees;

2. effects of program opportunities, if any, on school completion

and youth employment;

3. relative cost-effectiveness of different program approaches

for similar target groups;

4. comparative outcomes for enrollees and comparable non-enrollees,

i.e., the net impact of the cost for various programs; and

5. anticipated program costs for national replication. (p. IIB)

Rockford's commitment to knowledge development is widely publicized

to all actors under YEDPA. Sub-contracting agreements require:

This is a pilot year for youth activities and the

following are required under this agreement:

A. Timely reporting. . . . B. Compliance with the evaluation procedure. . . . C. Staff paid under the program are required to

assist the sponsor . . . in participant and

program evaluation procedures;

Likewise, some of the information provided youth who enroll explains that:

The government told us to experiment with different ways

in helping you to know about jobs and how to get ready for them.

Because we are experimenting -we are working with many different

places who all have different ways to help you. Also--because

we are experimenting with the best ways to help you, we will be

doing a lot of surveys and using different methods so we can

keep track of you and hoc., well you are doing.

The major hypothesis.to be tested in Rockford is that unemployed and

low-income, school-age youth lack a positive self-image, vocational direction,

skills, and a basic knowledge of goal setting. These ddficiencies, it is

posited, have a direct effect upon school retention and individual performance.

2 LJ
3

A secondary hypothesis is included in the design: "A need exists, within

the school and community environments, for the expansion of methods and

techniques in career guidance activities for youth" (p. IIE). To accomplish

a testing of elese hypotheses, Rockford has established a firm research

design which utilizes all of YEDPA's activities and participants, and a systematic program of testing and measuring participants.

The testing of youth has received a considerable amount of attention

in Rockford. All participants are pre-tested by the LEAs or the prime

sponsor's Youth Employment Service (Y.E.S.). The two pre-tests include a

self-concept survey and a mock job application. Within the specially

constructed self-concept survey are questions which distinguish participants

by, for example, gregariousness, sophistication, knowledge of occupational

information, parents' education levels. Additionally, youths are evaluated

by interviewers when they apply for YETP or YCCIP slots, thereby allowing

for the assessment of growth measures that are not self-reported. Youth

are coded on such characteristics as dress, courtesy, eye contact, posture,

and use of gum, cigarettes, or dark glasses. Biweekly supervisor-participant

ratings measure improvement.

The research design for the in-school programs is further refined to

determine how different programs affect different types of students, especially with regard to school retention. As the CETA youth director noted,

"Every classroom structure is pre-set according to our evaluation process."

Thus, though all school programs concentrate on imminent school-leavers, one even exclusively enrolls "bunnies," i.e., those who are shy and withdrawn.

One LEA program is confined to counseling, while another includes English

and math. The director explained:
We made it very clear Lo the schools that we did not expect

tremendous results. We said, "See what happens." For those

that are successful, let's analyze what made them successful.

We didn't say, "You've got to come out with ninety percent or

fifty percent that make it." We said, "Provide the service;

let's see what kinds of activities they're involved its, and

see who does what." It's totally experimental.

In its concern for knowledge development, Rockford is aware that

subcontractors may not share its readiness to go beyond the regulations.

But Rockford is confident that the information acquired from research will

be useful and well worth the added cost and inconvenience. As Rockford

states in its research manual to sub-contractors:

The program requirements for knowledge development mandate

a system of evaluation unlike that utilized in previous CETA

programming locally. This may be viewed as an unnecessary,

cumbersome, and distasteful task that %as to be performed to

receive the Federal monies; the Special Programs Division

Administration perceives this differently" (p. IIF).

By paying such close attention to knowledge development, the Special Programs

Administration of Rockford (the youth portion of CETA locally) has become an

important institution in youth services and not merely a pass-through for

feieral funds.

Chicago

Knowledge development activities were vaguely defined in the YETP

and YCCIP plans. In fact the Office of Evaluation in the prime sponsor did

not participate in planning process for these programs.

Under YCCIP Chicago offered three possible subjects for research and

evaluation--a comparison of placement records among CBOs, a comparison of

YCCIP and YETP placements; and a comparison of the frequency with which YETP

and YCCII' students attend post-secondary institutions. Under YETP Chicago

offned to evaluate some show-case programs on the basis of their effectiveness

in clarifying career goals for youth.

2

-,
Chicago's evaluators have begun to deal with YEDPA programs in the

past few weeks. So far, however, they have not completed designing the

research steps they will take, although a draft document outlining this

research has been prepared.

Part of the delay is due to the evaluators uncertainty about what

questions are worthwhile asking. The evaluators are reading other research

reports looking for a transferrable methodology or model to apply in Chicago.

Evaluators are also concerned about the lack of clarity in the objectives

of youth employment programs. Past experience and intuition tell these

evaluators that many of the standard variables on which they have collected

information for many years are not the truly important factors in the final

analysis. There is a sense in which every project cite is unique, the

evaluators claim. The director of evaluation would like to receive expert

advice in designing these evaluations. Equally, he would like to be part

of an information-sharing seminar involving DOL experts and other prime

sponsors.

Considering the full-time personnel and resources devoted to research in Chicago, and considering the computerized NIS at its disposal,

we should expect impressive things in knowledge development from this

prime sponsor. In the past Chicago has used evaluation to help discern

effective and noneffective programs. The uncertainties and problems of

research under YEDPA are common to all prime sponsors and should not

be immobilizing.

Cook County

Cook County advised eligible applicants for YETP programs that

two major issues were to be studied: (1) the effect on drop-out rates
of career information, work experience, and maintenance of academic status,

and (2) the effect of work experience and support services on drop-out

employability. LEAs and CBOs were told to outline their knowledge development plans and establish control groups.

On paper LEAs and CBOs will engage in competent but not groundbreaking

research activities, focusing on process and short-run output dimensions.

How conscientiously LEAs and CBOs follow through on these research plans

will depend upon the efforts of the prime sponsor. Hard pressed for staff

itself, the prime sponsor may not be able to do justice to this goal of

the legislation. There is still time for Cook County to take a more active

role in knowledge development, should it want to. With the aid of consultants

from several area universities, an interesting research agenda could be

fashioned. Cook County's diverse economic terrain would allow for an interesting comparison of effectiveness on different types of kids.

II. Program Content vnd Quality

Absent hard standards, judgements of :irogram quality are inherently

subjective. For this reason we report the perceptions of quality as seen

from the perspectives of the different actors under YEDPA: prime sponsors,

subgrantees, participants and employers.

Prime sponsors approach quality from an administrative perspective

which iu the three studied jurisdictions wcs reflected in the general

approach to the employment portions of programs. Each sponsor could defend

its approach as leading to quality employment when the model could be successfully implemented.
f

The Chicago design distributes participants singly in the public

sector and in the private sector and in small grot.lm among CBOs. As a

result, many Chicago YEDPA jobs resemble realistic employment experiences.

Some even offer the realism of occasional labor-management friction.

Cook County developed a goal-oriented project to serve groups of

out-of-school youths. Groups work toward such specific ends as a youth

employment agency and a youth recreation center. Participants can see the

effects of their work. In-school youths are placed in public-sector jobs

much like those in Chicago.

Under YETP, Rockford developed what might be called the pedagogical

model. CBOs give in-depth skill training and hands-on experience. Photography and auto mechanics, among other skills, are taught much as they might

be in vocational education. YCCIP participants acquire skills on the job.

They commute to a single project, the renovation of the old high-school

football stadium. This renovation project has attracted the participation

and contributions of residents who played there twenty years ago. As a

result, trainees are exposed to work experiences using, for example, an air hammer.

Program quality will of course partially depend on the quality of

supervision. Where youth are dispersed among work assignments in businesses,

supervisor-to-worker ratios are -.umerically better, but the work experience

need not be better for it. We have observed that an employer may assign

responsibility for supervision and training to unwilling and perhaps unqualified employees. Thus as we know from the literature on training, the

structure and organization of training situations can only take us so far.

Clearly, it is premature to make lasting judgments about the quality of

201
supervision. We need to observe more situations and gather more data.

In-school participants are doubly supervised, for the LEA sends

monitors to visit the work sites. On at least one occasion a monitor

successfully arbitrated a dispute between a student and her employer.

Some LEAs are using vocational education supervisors as YEDPA supervisors.

Whether they can shift gears to appreciate YEDPA's non-vocational goals

remains an important matter to pursue.

Another ingredient necessary to operate programs of high quality

is a proper matching of young workers to work situations. Job matching

is hard enough, but when youths are being placed, the task is severalfold

more difficult. As the case descriptions of young people reported below

suggest, youth frequently lack a clear vision of their long-or short-term

occupational interests. All of the studied projects expressed an interest

in matching kids to jobs and some have instituted measures to minimize the

risk of poor placements. The Chicago Board of Education, for one, undertook

its placement mission with care, despite the size of its program (approximately 900 students). The interests of students were balanced against the

availability of jobs, the desirability of keeping young workers in their

neighborhoods, and the likely contribution afforded by the job.

The task of insuring program is likely to be most burdensome.

in Chicago, because of the size and ct, , 1, xity of Chicago activities.

Chicago funds seven program agents, one of which is the Department of Hunan

Services. DHS, in turn, funds thirty-six CBOs and delegate agencies, one of

which is the Chicago Federation of Settlements. CFS distributes fifty
YCCIP slots among nine centers and also apportions a share of YETP slots.

The centers have major responsibility for designing their own programs and

establishing their own systems of supervision. Likewise, the Chicago Board

of Education proposal is translated by forty principals who accordingly

appoint faculty members to operationalize YETP. In so doing, faculty directors may add their own touches to the program. One LEA program decided to

make kids feel good about being in CETA and to remove the stigma of involvement. The director enrolled only students with a C average and now students,

clamour for admittance. This individual teacher went even further to

improve her program by getting the employer to pay for a dinner for enrollees

at the end of the program. This one program may have its deficiencies; or

it may not. The point here is that several layers of responsibility separate

Chicago from the delivery of service, making it difficult to identify desirable programs or portions of programs. Subgrantees of course have responsibility to monitor programs, but decentralization does have its potential

risks.

Reactions to YEDPA by subgrantees, public employers and participants

are generally very favorable in all jurisdictions. As yet no pe,ttern is

evident in what aspects are most appreciated by different groups in the

jurisdictions, but these reactions are worth reporting none the less. A

youth member of the Rockford Planning Council thinks YEDPA provides more

preparation for unsubsidized employment than other programs. Other youths

liked the greater emphasis on supervision under YEDPA. One public employer

required a great deal of persuasion before eventually hiring a CETA youth.

Now he says of his employee, "Alfred is a pleasant surprise." The kids, it

is cleari appreciate the added planning and organization that have produced,4

YEDPA work experiences, since pre-YEDPA jobs often lacked training and
-10-

supervision. One participant in these former programs, now a YETP enrollee,

had this to say about YEDPA:

I all ways want to work at St. James [hospital] because

I like to help people. Now since I got in this program I

got a job at St. James and I am very proud of it. But if I

could put in 8 hours a day because I like the job I do. I work in physican therophy and I hope to be able to make a

career out of it because I think that its a very good experience for me. And most of the jobs it don't be nothing

to do at the work sites but I don't like to go to work and

do nothing because I like to work and help peoples and I

get along with everyone at my job and try to keep my grade

up as far as I could. I am known to do good work and to get

along with everyone and stay out of trouble and I am proud

to be in this program of yours. To me I think that this is

the best one I have been in. (emphasis added).

Our interviews with youth produced other favorable and some unfavorable reactions to YEDPA. A description of some of the participants along

with their unedited written comments follows:

A sophomore boy, working in an animal hospital, is

"uncertian" about his career goal. From the classroom

training he learns: "How to act working on a job like

never run out when the second your time is up, vrhile you

are still doing sometime, and more." He adds: "This is

a great program; It gives us young adlts the experience

of working out on the field. This program should not DIE

in september."

A perky girl entered the program because" to make a

long story short, In desperate need for a job." She is

working as a tutor, says the classroom and orientation

sessions "don't relate to anything," and holds that "it's

not what i want; I could do something better. Today my

career goal is to go into Drama yesterday, auto Machanics

I really don't know these career goals can drive you completely Mad!"

Another sophomore boy, who writes that he intends "To

become a Commercial," joined the program because "I could

mabye get a good Job since Their was'nt no openings anywhere else." He is employed as a saw sharpener, and finds

the class sessions helpful:. "I can relate to my Job better

Im not depressed when I make a mistake I feel and know that

I can fix it. It lets me know haw to relate to problems."
A fifteen-year-old girl raved about her job in a tailor

shop and its congruence with the school's clothing classes and

her own efforts "to try to make my clothes at home." Two other

comments suggest that for her YETP is avocational rather than

vocational: "The program . . . would be helpful to young

teenagers who have nothing to do with their time"; and "Well

from this point on I want to be special education teacher for

retarded kids."

A sixteen-year-old boy working as a "janitor helper" wants

to be "the Best Trumpet player in the World"; he wishes for

longer hours and more money, and adds: "But this special class

is great I like it." His LEA programs pays for classroom

attendance.

A seventeen -yeas -old girl writes: "Things our class discusses in theory are not helpful to me.- These things I am already aware of, but I do like the program, my instructors, and

my supervisors." She is working in a hospital and wants to be

a business administrator.

A nineteen-year-old girl working in a nursery school wants to

be a housewife: "Why, when one of the students dont like a job

why do they place them on the job. Now I dont think thats fair

for that student."

A seventeen-year-old girl is employed working in a Park

picking up paper and cleaning the washrooms, though she "would

like to be a Model or R.N. I think that if I had YPTE program

I would keep theory out because it don't make sense."

An eighteen-year-old boy wants to "be a basketball player."

He works as a "custodian aid" in the "Park dist." and says:

"the program is great. it help you to get what on your own.

it keep you off the streets when you get out of school I like

this program a lot." In conversation, he stressed the same

feature: YETP keeps him out of trouble.

A seventeen-year-old girl: "As of

a military policewoman in the marines.

a teacher's aid at the nursery school.

very useful to me because it could help

nursery school."

today I would like to be

I'm in YET? and I'm an

P.S. The program is

me if I want to be a

An eighteen-year-old girl "would like to be a pediastrition,"

and is now "Day Care help with children." She says: "I feel this

program is a big help and should go on for the children of the

Future. If I had known about the program long ago believe me I

would have joined it like I have done now. Keep up the good work."
- 12 -

A junior girl explained that the Office Occupations program (voc ed) was closed to her because of her honor status.

She is now working at a financial service, and finds all of

her school work relevant. The YETP sessions are useful. for

" getting familiar with myself. I also have typing and English

(for proper speech), and trigonometry (since finance have to

do with money and number figures). I plan to become a computer

programmer or a dental assistant, if not neither of those a

probation officer."

One sophomore boy doesn't know why he's working at "Janitorial work, Coaching, Gym instructor," because he wants to be

a "Hotel Manager or mailman." His job "doesn't relate at all.

to any of my classes." A peer, who is "Working as a Toutor,"

likeg "to teach little children." His ambition? "I Want 10

be a telophone." His employer grouped him with six others

as "really responsible, neat, and on time."

Yet one more vignette illustrates some of the difficulties ovaluators will have in judging the quality of YEDPA activities. Billy, a

polite, modest and well-dressed sophomore has won the woodworking competition in the Chicago schools. Today he works in an upholstery and refinishing shop part-time under Chicago's YETP-LEA program. On-the-job

Billy works as a regular employee requiring little supervisory attention

and contributing to the firm. Some might say that Billy is an example

of a YEDPA success. Others would say that Billy is overqualified for his

job and didn't need YEDPA. In this case Billy does owe his job to the

school's intervention.

As more experience under the Act unfolds we will be in a better

position to judge the quality of YEDPA in these jurisdictions. In studying

the issue of quality, it may prove useful to use some of the following

criteria:

1. The extent to which jobs are screened on several criteria,

e.g., potential for skill growth or utility to the community.

2. The extent to which jobs are matched to participants on the

basis of their interests.

0

2' A
- 13 -

3. Whether or not youth are actually working and receiving

training, counseling and other services.

4. Whether or not adjustments are made when the above criteria

are not met.

III. Youth Participation

Perhaps there has been too much expected from having youth involvement in the planning and operation of YEDPA programs.

The requirement that youths be included on the prime sponsors' planning

councils appears to be grounded on shaky assumptions--that they can make a

unique contribution; that they work well with adults; and tLat they are able

to represent their peers in social action programs intended for young perle.

The evidence is to the contrary. The youth target under YEDPA, as a group,

are relatively passive, intimidated by adults, and divided over satisfactory

program elements.

The prime sponsors sought to assign youth-council seats to the most

articulate CETA-experienced delegates. Chicago attracted a large number of

nominees. The council chose from "submitted blurbs" describing particular

nominees who had expressed interests in service. Cook County youth representatives were accepted upon the advice of CBOs. Two Rockford youths were

appointed by CETA staff, and two more were appointed later.

However the formula was implemented, it does not appear to have

encouraged much input from kids. With effort, Chicago and Rockford CETA

staff members were able to secure youth participation by drawing kids aside

from the council. As the Rockford youth director pointed out, "Surrounded
- 14 -

by that many heavies, it's hard to talk." Though not sanguine about youth

involvement, Rockford nevertheless expanded youth participation on the

council.

While it would be difficult for any adolescent to lead a group of

adults, young CETA clients find it especially difficult. A spokesman for

a Cook County LEA emphasized that YETP kids are distinguishable from their

age coh,..rt in ways likely to reduce their council participation: "With

CETA, if a guy is warm, breathing, and can get there he's enrolled. He's

probably }.ad a lot of hard knocks." Other interviewed adults concur. Even

the kids' writing samples suggest that disagreeable interactions with

teachers have ill-prepared youth to volunteer ideas to adults.

Neither is the '-e much support for the argument that a greater ratio

of youths to adults would release good ideas from emboldened young people.

For example, some concrete suggestions for improving YEDPA given to us by

youth concentrated on recreation. One sixteen-year-old boy argued that

participants "need more things to do like play games some of the times."

A seventeen-year-old girl proposed that "the Youth Employment should take

all the children on a picnic or trip once every month. There should be

more recreation like (fun and play). For example: theatres, concerts,

picnics and etc." Many asked if they could go on field trips, and one

CBO participant inspired cheers among the rest when he instructed us to

"tell Congress to liven this up." Considering the substantive importance

of remarks tFe current rules requiring two youth participants seem ample.

Since the youths apparently have little eff.-ct on program design,

it is cerious that they in fact attend council meetings regularly.* One

* Regularity is quantitatively different among the three prime sponsorships.

21'j
- 15 -

Rockford youth member, for example, walks two miles with her baby to attend

the frequent 7:30 A.M. meetings. We don't know what motivates such behavior-Jkhether it is a desire to be part of a formal social setting or an expression of youth commitment to the program. It is probably a bit

of both.

Although the evidence indicates that extensive youth involvement

in program planning is cf limited value, there are other imaginative and

useful ways in which youths can make a contribution. Recognizing these

other possibilities, YEDPA recommends the use of participant-supervisors

and the design of projects which permit youths LO serve other youths.

Only Chicago uses participant-supervisors. Whatever economy they

might achieve from this practice is offset by the added costs of monitoring

participant-supervisors to ensure that adequate supervision is provided.

A spokesman for one of the seven program agents in Chicago said that "participants are worthless as supervisors," and that by eliminating them, he

"can hire more kids." A 1977 participant-supervisor for S.P.E.D.Y. told

a classmate at the university that he had earned $4.50 an hour from CETA

while he worked on a second full-time job. The arrangement was possible

because he was free to leane the work-site after he had checked participants

in.

Other types of youth involvement are found in Chicago and Cook

County. By dispersing youth'to many projects, Chicago is able to find

several different ways in which youth can get involved. The Chicago

program, define such tasks for youth as the prevention of youth crime

with emphasis on "theft and assault of residents (seniors) and vandalism

of property," "peer counseling," "supportive therapy and crisis intervention

for young people" and "Tutors." Of his job as a tutor one boy poignantly

wrote: "I am working as a tutor at Neborhood (sic) house the Job

2:JD
- 16 -

rota title III It helps me relate to people better. because I like to

teach little children." Either Chicago has access to a cadre of highly

qualified youth capable of assuming professional responsibilities;, or in

the parlance of the proposal writer are "just blowing smoke."

Cook County projects of this nature are more thoughtful. The best

is structured to let participants know when they have succeeded so that

they are rewarded for helping others. At least one project, the Chicago

Heights Youth Employment Service, which uses youth placement counselors

and job developers, is exemplary. Further, it has already demonstrated

success in job development and referral.

The CBO that developed the YES project recognized that many of the

youth selected to operate the program may lack confidence and verbal and

interactional skills. Thus, participants began training seminars on basic

counseling, advanced counseling and job placement skills before YES opened..

Additionally, they attended fourteen sessions of Youth Effectiveness Training, one goal of which was to raise their levels of confidence and assertiveness. The ten trainees have thus far placed th).rty young people in unsubsidized employment.

Under the guidance of another Cook County CBO, participants are

developing a youth recreation center. While they have not completed this

goal, they can see intermediate results produced by their work. Despite

their productivity, numbers of kids resent YEDPA's intervention in their

lives and care only that they receive a check. As the director pointed

out: "These kids are drop-outs with family problems and behavioral problems,

but they are not the kids who are tough enough to avoid society."

iQ 308
- 17 -

Our review of youth participation in the three studied jurisdictions

points to the following conclusions'.

1. The design of youth programs is unlikely to be shaped

by youth council members.

2. We find no support for the belief that kids are pleased to

serve other kids merely because adults think they ought to.

3. The involvement or noninvolvement of youth as service

deliverers should not be the exclusive reason for funding

or not funding projects. Youth involvement may still be

important as secondary criterion.

IV. Targeting

The enrollment of eligible youths as defined by the regulations,

commonly called targeting, has always been an important topic; in the wake

of recently discovered irregularities in CETA enrollments, the matter has

taken on new dimensions.

Targeting may be analyzed in terms of (1) whether those enrolled in

programs are in fact eligiblu under the criteria established by the regulations; (2) whether those eligible have had equal access to program opportunities; and (3) whether the targeting requiremonta contribute to or detract

from youth employment and training policies as perceived by local administrators.

Table 1 converts to percentages tho prime sponsors' most recant

figural relevant to targeting. Tho de..a should be regarded as provisional,

since they are based upon enrollment numbers issued when most YEDPA programs

were but two weeks underway.

41°° 301
- 18 -

Table 1

Percentages in Target Groups, by Prime Sponsor and Program

(31 March 1978)

711.17.WWW7MAC.MWM=MMWMIM.W irtmelymIlmmalminummalL7MMIM

Cook County Chicago

Rockford

Consortium

YETP YCCIP YETP YCCIP YETP

b

YCCIP

Economically Disadvantaged 79% a 100% a

60% 67%

70-85% Lower Living

Standard 21% 21% 13%

Minority 41% 27% 85% 82% 46% 87%

Drop-out 38% 100% 2% 84% 8.6% 100%

Female 49% 10% 53% 39% 48% 2%

aIncome information not collected. Cook County is now doing so.

b

Includes program for youths of varying economic backgrounds.

Several of the actors noted the limitations of procedures used to

verify applicant eligibility, even those which required that an enrolling

youth be accompanied by a parent, rather than that his application be

signed by a parent. They note that parents as well as youths can offer

false information. Information though accurate is often outdated, e.g.,

1977 income tax records of someone unemployed in 1978. As an intake agent,

the LEA probably offers the bast control on eligibility compliance, since

teachers and counselors era generally aware of a student's financial circumstances. In addition, teachers can turn to free lunch lists, though they

aro compiled from information equally resistant to verification.

302
- 19 -

Prime sponsor intake procedures bear on the eligibility issue. Subgrantees in Chicago and Cook County perform their own intake, while Rockford

has established a single enrollment office. Since YETP enrollees are accepted

on the basis of income credentials presented in support of their applications,

the responsibility for meeting eligibility requirements is diffused in

Chicago and Cook County.

Chicago's seven program agents are, according to the YETP plan, responsible for "outreach recruitment [and] eligibility determination and enrollment."

Yet two representatives of the Chicago Board of Education have apparently

not been apprised of their responsibility. When asked how income information

is verified, they both said: "That's not my problem." As we have suggested,

the layers which s'parate the Chicago CETA office from the final delivery

agent evidently dilute information about who shall bear which required burden,

so that accountability for meeting regulations is dispersed. On the other

hand, competition among 29,000 eligible youths for 4,338 YETP slots reduces

the chances that many slots will go to ineligible kids. As one check the

CETA MIS staff uncover missing information, and some monitoring is provided

by Illinois Job Service representatives who spot-check enrollment-center

recents for accuracy, even though they have no real stake in the task.

Cook County's system is similar, though service-providing agencies

work directly with CETA staff. Initial verification is left up to the

intake unit and according to a member of this prime sponsor's staff, "We

review eligibility forms for consistency and apparent correctness. If

things don't add up, we know something is wrong." Beyond that point, they

hold that "verification is not worth the staff that would be needed."

Indeed a platoon of verifiers would cost more jobs than it would save,

and "in the end, it's our word against theirs."

fl 30 3
-20-

Rockford organized a central intake office, distributed posters and

applications widely, mailed applications t- drop-outs and delivered others

to staffs dealing with young offenders. LEAs performed their own intake

and forwarded completed applications to the prime sponsor unit for verification. The unit verifies applications against W-2 forms. check stubs,

public aid cards and numbers; a CETA youth staff member rechecked every

application for internal consistency. As staff assess their procedures:

"Where some have slipped through, we've notified the kids and stopped them.

But there always seem to be strange cases, and in some instances, it's not

possible to verify applications."

Despite differences in intake and verification procedures, the kids

we have met seem much the same. None stood out as not belonging. Another

rough measure of homogeneity is the writing samples we analyzed. Not one

youth wrote without error. With the exception of two girls, the errors

were serious. Further, all kids said their wages go for clothes.

A few clues appeared in their writing, where one girl suggested the

presence of an ineligible member in her group when she wrote: "I think the

only people who should be on this program is the one who really need the

job."

Access

Even if all enrollees meet the eligibility requirements, it is still

possible for participants to be qualitatively different than those not in

the program. Our interviews suggest three factors which have tended to

shape the character of YEDPA enrollment within the boundaries defined by

the eligibility regulations. These are: (1) the tendency for some program

304

ZO'
- 21 -

administrators to "cream-off" the best students and reject others perhaps

more in need of services; (2) the unwillingness of many qualified students

and institutions to participate; (3) LEA desegregation programs which

frequently limit the LEAs'readiness to serve eligible students.

Selective Admissions Practices. There is in any social program a

tendency to choose the best or most desirable kids within the targeted

categories. The problem with such a practice is that services never reach

those who might benefit the most from them. Under YEDPA, the prime sponsors

had considerable leeway in screening applicants within the constraints imposed by the regulations. How they exercised this discretion determined

which students had knowledge of, and access to, programs.

While CBOs and LEAs in Cook County and Chicago may have engaged in

their own advertising, only Rockford as a prime sponsor advertised the

availability of slots. This it did widely and in several forns.

To help select those responding to the ads and other modes of re- cruitment, Rockford established the principle that CETA was not to be a

dumping ground for disruptive students.

Cook County and Rockford sought to target programs to the students

most in need of employment and training services. In Cook County LEAs,

economically eligible were identified from free lunch lists. Potential

dropouts were identified on the basis of their attendance, grades and

behaviors. But in Cook County, the number of slots is roughly equal to

the problem, thus minimizing the need to be highly selective in admissions

practices.

305
-22-

Chicago with its large eligible population let each school project

(in some forty separate buildings) select program participants. It was

conceded that either few would be called or many called and few selected.

Both methods were used in fact.

Some schools publicized the program widely, and then specified

selection standards. One school set a minimum grade average for entry.

Another chose those who were most articulate about their career plans

or who were honor students. The YETP teacher in a third school took the

opposite approach. He said, "We couldn't put out the news in the general

bulletin, so we made the information available selectively. We filled

classes first come, first served."

Beyond doubt some Chicago schools creamed off the best students,

but it is hard to fault them. First, schools were never advised against

it. Second, in a choice between limiting access by withholding information

or setting rigid admissions standards, the latter probably seems fairer to

students and does not suggest privilege. Third, YETP was to establish a yearround CETA beachhead in the private-sector, so that the prime sponsor and

the school had an incentive to satisfy participating businesses. When

even the best of the eligible students did not always please employers, the

result of not being selective might have far reaching consequences for

CETA.

Barriers to Institutional and Individual Participation. In racially

and economically mixed Cook County, some students have been reluctant to

participate because YETP would stigmatize them as members of minority or culturally deprived groups. In schools in which economically disadvantaged

students are not that abundant to begin with such aversion by disadvantaged

students has made outreach much more difficult. Notices of YETP first

306
-23-

appeared in small type in the school's bulletin; subsequently, larger headlines were used. Finally, YETP staff began sending personal notes to

students, asking them to apply.

The problem is not always with the sensitivities of the young.

Sometimes it's the parents who resist such programs. Such was the case

in a different Cook County suburb which was not initially response to

having youth programs established at all.

Access to YETP by a community's young people can be shaped simply by

the willingness or unwillingness of schools to participate. This did not

occur in Chicago of course, since the Board of Education's jurisdiction is

Coterminous with the city's. But in COok County and Rockford some schools

and districts did not wish to participate, leaving pockets of students with

limited access to YETP programs. Although there were many reasons why a

school did not work with the sponsors on YETP, but one,school desegregation,

came up twice. A recently desegregated Rockford LEA backed away from its

tentative agreement; it was not prepared to cope with another major educational change. A second Rockford school would not alter its schedule to

satisfy the employment needs of thirty bused students. One Cook County

district currently busing students finds it impossible to become

involved, since eligible disadvantaged students would have to be bused to

an area in which jobs could be found.

Racial Discrimination. Beyond the factors identified above, racial

discrimination may also limit access to YEDPA programs. Our evidence on

this score is far fram'conclusive, but a few incidents suggest that, like

other programs to aid the disadvantaged, YEDPA must face up to the barrier

of discrimination. Public employers in a predominately white community

30
-24-

refused to hire nonwhite YETP enrollees because of residency requirements

in his community. When told there was no ouch requirement, he suggested

that the kids would not be able to pass his interview anyway. Subtle discrimination is probably practiced by employers who place impossible-to-fill

job orders with YETP.

Missing the Target

There is some feeling at the local level that Congress has overlooked

important groups of youth in defining eligibility. Such groups as juvenile

offenders, it was felt in Rockford and by CliOs in Cook County, should be

included under the law irrespective of family economic status. Similarly

there was a feeling among persons in Cook County that emancipated youth- -

those living alone but from nondisadvantaged families--should qualify for

inclusion. Rockford's prime sponsor would also like to do more for children

in foster homes.

30
- 25 -

V. Substitution

The intense concern of the Federal government for maximizing

the quality of youth services is not shared by prime sponsors. Local

agents seem more concerned with getting on with the job of providing

services and running programs to the best of their ability.

Our discussions with prime sponsor staffs and others have not

led us to accept the view that intentional substitution is being practiced

in any of the studied jurisdictions. And on face value the assurances we

have received make some sense. Substitution among CETA titles is not like

substitution under the Revenue Sharing program or between CETA and non-CETA

revenues. The sponsor does not stand to gain by reducing the net contribution of the program. And perhaps more compelling, the prohibition against

substitution is backed by the force of regulation.

Despite good-faith intentions, the act of ensuring compliance

with the anti-substitution provisions will be easier for some sponsors

than for others, but in all cases will require monitoring. Chicago with

its tiered system of subcontracts, decentralized delivery of service and

large size will have a more difficult time monitoring employment patterns

than Rockford, for example, where the prime sponsor is more closely associated with service delivery. Also facing a severe monitoring problem is

Cook County which, to its credit, notified CBO's and LEAs as early as

February that strict rules governing inter-title transfers will be enforced.

In future reports we shall describe on the efforts of the sponsors to guard

against substitution, especially as they embark upon joint planning for

Titles I and III for the first time.
-26-

Some Dimensions of Substitution

The following diimensions of the substitution issue should be

looked at more closely.

First, there are several types of substitution effects that could

result under YEDA. These include inter alia:

Title III enrollment substit.iting for Title I enrollment

and vice versa. Rockford claims that kids who do not want

training are placed in Title I other than in Title III programs.

Federally supported jobs displacing regular, nonsupported

jobs.

Unfunded school programs being displaced by those paid for

by YEDPA.

Within schools, YEDPA classes can displace academic classes

in the curriculum.

Sponsors can manipulate the allocations under YEDPA for

salaries and physical equipment.

YEDPA can displace vocational education programs in the schools

and the community and vice versa. For instance, in Cook County

one LEA is shifting some students enrolled in vocational education programs to YETP.

Second, we must take into consideration that some prime sponsors--

like Cook County-- historically had heavy youth enrollments under Title I.

310
- 27 -

Are we to hold all prime sponsors to the sane standard on substitution,

should it occur?

Third, we should explore the causes of substitution. As a working

hypothesis, it is believed that substitution may occur without the prime

sponsors intentionally guiding kids into programs. For example, since

Title III offers youth longer hours of work than Title I, youth may evidence

a preference for Title III programs. Staff at Chicago Board of Education

perceive the potential for such a shift.

Statistical Analysis of Substitution

Table 2 provides a profile of each sponsor's universe of need as

described in their YETP and YCCIP plans. These figures help to place the

substitution issue in context. The magnitude of the need, even allowing

for substantial errors in measurement, underscores the importance of

having YEDPA maximize local services for youth rather than displace

services already being provided. The universe of need data, in addition,

are obviously extremely crude, spotty and vastly outdated. To vse them

as a precise base-line against which to judge whether substitution has

or has not occurred would be to compound the error. Nor is there any

development known to us or the sponsors to suggest that the picture

painted by Table 2 might have improved (or worsened) since YEDPA programs

were introduced. The awarding of special grants to the Woodlawn Organization in Chicago and the governors'special programs under YEDPA have

not begun as yet, nor is there evidence that the prime sponsors have taken

the availability of these programs into account--one way or another.
Table 2. SPONSOR REPORTED UNIVERSE OF NEED (YEAR OF ESTIMATE)

Rockford Cook

Consortium County

City of

Chicago

Number of Youth

10,414a n.a. 120,600f 14-15

(1977) (1975)

16-19 23,206a 195,6084 105,433i

(1977) (1977) (1975)

20-21 9,932 <201,327d 104,742

(1977) (1977) (1975)

% in School

14-15 b

97% n.a. 97.4%

(1977) (1975)

16-19 75 %b n.a. 83.5%

(1977) (1975)

20-21 18%c n.a. 19.3%

(1970) (1975)

Unemployed

964 15,488d 19,617f 16-19

(1975)

20-21 358 <11,036d 10,796

f

(1975)

MO School Drop-outs

6171

b

5918° 13,485 14-21

(1977) (1977) (1975)

Number of Young

Veterans

Number 14-21 with Arrest

Records

n.a. n. a. n. a.

n.a. n.a. n.a.

- 28 -

312
Table 2 (continued)

Number Economically

Disadvantawl

18 and under

Over 18

n.a.

n.a.

33,572

(1978)

72,158

(1978)

n.a.

Youth total not 2.787 n.a. n.a. identified by

age

(1977)

16-19 n.a. n.a. 28,935

(1975)

20-21 n.a. n.a. 6,423

(1975)

aAnnual Planning Report, Rockford SMSA, 1977.

b

Regional Board of Education (Rockford)

cU.S. Census

d

SESA estimates

eCJok County Superintendent of Public Instruction

pia of Chicav Current Population Survey, 1975.

n.a. not ascertained

- 29 -

313
- 30 -

A comparison of youth er.rollments by Title and sponsor over time

is provided in Table 3. These data like others we Lave encountered are not

totally complete and are not always corpatible across programs. Nevertheless some tentative conclusions on youth participation seem justified. A

large share of Title I resources have historically gone to youth, but a

slight decline in youth participation relative to total participation in

TitleI is evident for Chicago and Cook County. Youth may have held their

ground in other programs, but Title I efforts are numerically the largest.

In absolute terms these jurisdictions have increased the number of youth

served. And in Chicago that's a hefty total. Thus the numbers seem to

imply that YEDPA served to meet a growing need under CETA--that is, a shift of relative focus to adults. Such a shift, incidentally, probably

came about as primes become more conscious of the resiliAnt adult unemployment problem.

While the long term trend was'towards less youth participation,

it has been said that an opportunistic sponsor must have pump.d up youth

enrollments under Title I in the first quarter of 1978 so that these

students could be switched over quickly into the Title III programs as

they came on line. First quarter youth enrollments under Title 1 as a percentage of all enrollees in Chicago and Cook County (where we have

time series data) seem to be roughly equal to the historical pattern.

This doesn't prove or disprove the hypothesis since a rational sponsor

might have slowed down the rate of youth intake knowing that YEDPA

programs would be available soon.

3.14
- 31 -

Table 3. SECOND QUARTER ENROLLMENTS AND PERCENTAGES OF YOUTHS

SY SPONSOR, TITLE AND ACE

Sponsor/

Title /Ate

1976

2nd Quarter

1977 1978

Rockford

Title I

18 and under 368 195 191

(40.42) (18.32) (18.92)

19-21 183 236 212

(20.02) (22.22) (21.62)

Total 911 1063 1006

(100.02) (100.0%) (100.02)

Title II

18 and under 11 27 20

(9.52) (5.3%) (7.32)

19-21 24 77 37

(21.0%) (15.02) (13.72)

Total 115 512 271

(100.02) (100.0%) (100.02)

Title Ina

17 and under 121

(92.42)

18-21 10

(7.6%)

22 and over 0

(0%)

Total 131

(100.0%)

Title VI

18 and under 21 8 50

(4.62) (2.82) (3.82)

19-21 92 44 205

(20.22) (15.6%) (15.5%)

Total 455 282 1322

(100.02) (100.0%) (100.02)
-32-

Table 3 (continued)

1976 1977 1978

Cook County

Youths as percentage

of total enrollments"

Title I (51%) (49%) (43%)

Title II (21%) (25%) (25%)

Title VI (28%) (24%) (22%)

Title III

17 and under 217

(84.4%)

18-21 40

(15.6%)

22 and over 0

(0%)

Total 257

(100%)

Chicago

Title I

18 and under 4147 1768 2526

(11.7%) (9.2%) (20.5%)

19-21 12957 4687 1945

(36.7%) (24.5%) (15.7%)

Total 35340 19121 12330

(100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%)

Title II

18 and under 43 102 15

(2.0%) (2.6%) (.7%)

19-21 308 517 195

(14.9%) (13.4%) (10.2%)

Total 2071 3871 1906

(100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%)

continued

316
-33-

Table 3 (continued)

Chicago (continued) 1976 1977 1978

Title IIIa

17 and under 1547

(42.5%)

18-21 2049

(56.2%)

22 and over 57

(1.6%)

Total 3643

(100.0%)

Title VI

18 and under 93 128 381

(2.9%) (4.5%) (3.5%)

19-21 511 714 1879

(16.2%) (25.3%) (17.1%)

Total 3149 2812 11003

(100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%)

n.a. data not available as of date of this report.

a Summer programs not considered.

bData are for all persons 21 and under
- 34 -

VI. Overhead

It is hard for us to draw any firm conclusions about the prime

sponsors' success at stretching resources. Surely some cross subsidization

of activities goes on in the sponsor's office as physical equipment,

telephones and even personnel are used to directly or indirectly conduct

YEDPA activities. But the problem is to identify the net addition to

resource utilization due to YEDPA; this requires knowing what resources

are being used more efficiently, but also what resources are being used

less efficiently as a result of YEDPA. We have the added problem of

determining whether all YEDPA funds actually go to YEDPA activities

and do not confer some residual benefit to institutions, outside the

scope of YEDPA. For instance, in one school new electric typewriters

were purchased with YEDPA funds to be used in a youth training program.

These will remain the property of the institution.

LEAs universally state that they lose money by offering YETP's

special services but that the program permits them to attend to clients

whose extraordinary needs are otherwise too costly to serve. We take

them to mean that YETP does not cover overhead fully. Yet CETA pays

for the staff and, in Rockford, pays a portion of the students' otherwise locally supported education, since academic credit is awarded to

participants.

Prime sponsor representatives in Cook County and Chicago were

able to list, between them, a donated ping-pong table, several CB0

supervisors, and verification of eligibility by the Illinois Job Service

as contributions. But if these representatives are anything like Rockford

318
GO.. Spoor/ W sues

1.1111.10 114..N list... IAtke) ....._!..ittet irvelred . Me te.*It. as.. =ir"."' M sr Wass IIM. 2.1.12n

Sawrd el Whom les Soho sonlwdr

eg VEIO Ili to 000

51.441. ITIS Caner

eiromonns

Orlsoloolge 00164 114 2 webs

Iil

12121-SnnIt 1. Sestelot 214 10.11 noeglage

owed. dyer Oa

SO 31 $143.040 cogeoliss SI "MS

1. Notelet IN

12,4144 Lodges 03

Itelessose to isdivhsol will

song of the

IS 3l 1147.11. rroItatise.

4111opsal Missies; 4qwt pews. sheghl. Wedge

Sponish.spodries

I. St ttttt t 202 VW letstastIpt giVeatlea tog Lilt Lew octal sad gorpolthrol stIllsg Iwo ehopotheal n 22 1141.000 WAIT

Gorgon

Wroth Vogt 10014400 ...dolls

Ispergewof

4. SlOgist 214 pot woolowes

goo as dowel IS as $124.106 Coot

esplentto 1s4 isnot tgoor

she sod horshe

sot Presgano)

S. Shenisis 107 sod

/11

Snowplowed drop. Goo 1/41

IS lisedoto sal II sowoollos

IhoshIne /SI

2111.32$ hoklerd Palls fohools 1. Lot 14-l1 weno-old (112001$ desp-ost prow

P. Colliond

122.3202 3. Saloom imam

4. We

1153203

$

(Sow so aboo)

1412 yese.eld IS ops owns

.4.15 7.51.510 1520 .$ Is toot allot. oaths poser

S. Sionhoge (102/) Oropsoh 20

141004214

s3.41 VAS

10 Is «who.

141 1.11 1l Is ohms

$7.41

&WWII rllslllGs fonwstet to UM

MOS

It 22.42 Swill Is oohs* showoune

Selma toe these Or

wish; IS hoesiwob. 11 sots

$ SIAS IS Asogghwob. 10

tp is 11 Oft ammo "ow 4"""g suss le. mita poem, IOC

'WIMP sods% alter lit esilesio. gad oath

se SO

lS

SIAS; II soli* st

ilsoralles et polio woos* 1011

12:62 WIC

town.se has as .lassoes

piggies

IS loorstosh. 0

sect.; Job bent

swell/410 to ogles'

IS lowohmok. II onto, Weed

osahosol Moon* ell spose

Idly oed 10 I .snow 1114

matt as pelh, tots feud,* Casein

"wen

Solt-goosalsed M 2 coedits 1011

slows Is

tesIgsb. sod life set. whoa

Vot.ftlatod IS 1 Gnat 111.12 slogs; loolodet ' holm for

10 bewshorel cohost sod

Osegoaholl e nmities' Solewhegeoese _

Glow siOsd v.

t111laN l.h wheel

Ilwory.

neat IMII

to *NAM

HAM

PAS

Cp go 3

n rodigh

11.11$

10 to I steams

$2.02

ULM

ihohol moors wow Wee shoos. dee so delays IS

blegiolles osessole ollsIbillly .20 solo ongswohlw 'toile. se pegotot 12. Cloths 01 alfeftreta eat oroplerw *Props. eurryulif woke nolo wilt hard el Idesollos

'le one Whotheo *Chews see Is .04014111milyik import as sh soot 0 Ills. 319
-35-

youth staff about possible donations, they first answered, "None."

Four hours later we had compiled the following list: lumber, concrete,

bricks, bolts, 300 gallons of paint (for which a $1 /gallon fee may be

levied), sanders, $10,000 raised by the Jaycees, air hammers, a stadium

owned by the Board of Education, typewriters and desks from the Board

of Education, and many hours of donated labor. The director of the Boys'

Club, the CB0 directing the stadium renovation,placed the total value

of donations at $100,000, not counting the stadium and property.

VII. Institutional Change

In this section we note some tendencies of institutions to

resist change generally; at best some scattered schools, businesses,

unions and youth-serving agencies have modified their behavior.

The Schools

The LEA Agreements. Table 4 condenses the terms of most of

the LEA agreements and supports the following observations.

1. With the exception of the Rockford schools, academic credit

is not awarded for attendance of YETP's classroom portion. :Local school

boards establish graduation requirements and curricula and are probably

committed to their decisions. Certainly schools would not make changes

lightly knowing "that government programs come and go," as a member of

Rockford's CETA staff observed.

Prime sponsor-LEA relationships are long standing and settled

in Chicago and Cook County. As such, they are hard to change. The

corresponding actors in Rockford, i.e., LEA and prime sponsor staffs,

320
-36-

had no script to follow. Additionally, Rockford schools are operating

under an austerity budget, a condition which placed CETA youth staff in

a strong bargaining position. They negotiated academic credit in exchange

for the provision of faculty and CETA career information booths, available

in the schools several times weekly. The Rockford Teachers' Association

had little to lose, for any extra res9uces might be applied to the reinstitution of past services, e.g., reduced athletic and music programs.

2. Chicago is the only jurisdiction in which all YETP students

are paid to attend class.

** Cook County District 206 does so, probably

to compensate for the five-hour work week to which students are confined

until they improve their grades. Other districts object to paying students even for uncredited class attendance. Two schools' representatives

observed that the practice caused problems with other pupils. One YETP

teacher said:

Our superintendent operates by principles. He doesn't

want work experience to interfere with kids' school work,

and he doesn't want to pay kids to attend school. They

come anyway, because they want to hang on to jobs.

3. Only Rockford gives academic credit for work experience,

though Cook County's District 214 and Districts 202-219 do so in special

*** circumstances. An administrator at 214 posited a case in which a

student needing one more English credit got a job at a newspaper and

"Schools Operating on Austerity Basis," Rockford Morning Star, 28 February

1978, p. A4.

**YETP's class portion in Chicago is held nt hours which justify a reward

for attendance, e.g., 7:00 A.M. See point No. 5 below.

***One other cooperative district program does so, according to the Cook

County CETA staff.

321
- 37 -

satisfied the requirement. Chicago's Exemplary In-School Youth Programs

Demonstration Project, now being planned, includes credit for work-experience. Additionally, Rockford Will expand a precedent established in

summer, 1977, and 240 students will have an opportunity to earn two

credits each in summer, 1978.

4. Difference in the fiscal years of prime sponsors and LEAs is

a considerable problem, and compounded by start-up delays. Administrative

complications and student lops of services have resulted.

In order for schools to plan facilities and deploy teachers, student

schedules are completed in the spring. When a federal program is expected

to begin October 1, schedules must be arranged accordingly to avoid disruption of learning; when they are not, the program is generally added on

to the school day, at a time when all participants are available. Were

the two planning cycles more compatible, more cooperation would have been

achieved.

Of the unsynchronized schedules, a Chicago LEA administrator

complained:

They foul us up miserably. We're always chasing the tail

of the dog. The federal fiscal year had been July 1 and we

had been January 1. We moved ours to coincide and they moved

to October. Now we're operating a program ending in September

with no guarantee it will continue in October, so we won't

implement it till October. The kids get all tangled up.

A Cook County administrator concurred:

We use the month of September for recruiting. Tell the kids

to hang on. With this one (program) twelve or thirteen

(students) dropped out before February.

Prime sponsors are aware of the problem and are increasingly

edgy that they have received no official go-ahead for next fall. As a

'

92ti
- 38 -

Rockford representative put it, "If we don't get something fast, there

will be no LEA contracts. Those guys (schools) close down for the

summer."

YETP's unusually late arrival on the school scene, combined with

the initial uncertainty over the meaning of regulations, accounts in

large measure for its weary reception by LEAs. An adjusted cycle and

permanent status would be more likely to increase the effectiveness of

this policy.

Other LEA Issues. There appears to be no pattern which explains

7,EA decisions about staffing in-school programs. Chicago, some Cook

County districts and one in Rockford used existing staff. One Cook

;County school administrator who used this arrangement under YETP, though

he does not under Title I, explained his decision thus:

It makes a hell of a difference if we use faculty on board.

We can pay just for what we need and have more various

people on an hourly rate basis. It gives us flexibility

at our fingertips.

Other Cook County districts and Rockford schools brought in new staff

specifically for YETP. Students, we find, drop in to discuss personal

matters with these new teachers since they are not occupied with other

classes. Perhaps student achievement is affected thereby. The question

is one Rockford should add to its list of researchable issues.

Academic credit for out-of-school students in YCCIP is available

in Rockford

* and Cook County. CBOs in Cook County have made arrangements

with nearby junior colleges for a C.E.D. program. YETP out-of-school

Storefront Alternative School. Sec Table 2.

323
-39-

youths may pursue the same course or return to school. Several programs

like Sunshine 75 are available. Nowhere is work-experience credited under

YCCIP.

In most discussions of YEDPA one aspect of LEA activities has

not received enough attention: teachers, and especially those in the

three jurisdictions we studied, are heavily unionized. Labor agreements

in these districts contain clauses on seniority, class size, class load,

and job load, and job bidding rules, all of which normally constrain

school administrators in the organization and operation of schools.

It is hard to imagine these rules not impinging to some extent on the

administrators'ability to plan and conduct programs. These rules also

probably served to encourage schools to look to new employees--not

covered by the labor agreement--to run the LEA programs. But should

YEDPA become a permanent fixture in school funding, we are confident

that it would become the subject of teacher-school board collective

negotiations if it hasn't already without our knowing it.

The Business Sector

Unions--The status of union agreements and involvement is

unchanged since the first report, except in Cook County. According

to Cook County planners, union representatives were included on the

youth planning council and plans for created jobs were submitted for

comment to the Chicago Federation of Labor and Industrial Union Council.

Thereafter, the Carpenters' Union contacted one CBO. It agreed that

union supervisors would be hired at the prevailing wage and that apprenticeship examinations would be given participants. Another CBO, which
- 40 -

had already hired supervisors, approached the Carpenters' Union at its

own volition. The union requested that supervisors be paid prevailing

wage, and the issue is unresolved.

Other sources suggest that the Cook County Carpenters' Union

has a different version of the story--one not as favorable to the prime

sponsor.

Because negotiations are in progress, our discussion will be held

in abeyance.

Private Employment - -All three prime sponsors intended to place

participants in the private sector, but have enjoyed different degrees

of success.

Rockford's plans may have been ironically redirected; kids appear

to have found their own route to private employment. The youth director

posits that the area's economic upswing has provided older kids with

unsubsidized employment, and the numbers of sixteen to nineteen-year-old

youths they expected as participants have not materialized. The fourteen

and fifteen-year-old majority they have enrolled are kept out of private

jobs by child labor laws.

Plans for a Cook County LEA project which proposed to rotate kids

through jobs every three months were halted when DOL would not approve

the project.

To be sure Chicago has placed students in private jobs under the

YETP program* While we have not interviewed all such placements, from

those we have observed, the kids owe their jobs to the efforts of teachers

who have used many different approaches to locate jobs in small business.

*The strength of the cooperative relationship is questioned in a recent

Chicago Sun-Times column by Mike Royko.

325
- 41 -

They arc, of course, following the placement pattern of the vocational

education work-experience program, though not apparently filling its jobs.

This suggests that YEDPA has not induced an institutional change in

this area, and in fact may even be substituting for other youth services.

Private Youth-Serving Agencies

CBOs are scheduled for more intensive study during the next few

months. A few we have seen to date among the hundreds funded by prime

sponsors under YETP or YCCIP have become sensitive to the availability of

public revenues through an involvement with YEDPA. Some indications of

an increase in cooperative relationships among public youth-serving

agencies is also observable. While cooperation among public agencies is

typically seen as a good thing, we would be ill-served if this cooperation

led to a form of coalition bargaining between prime sponsors and the

private agencies.

VIII. Choosing Delivery Agents

Because we have spoken with only a few CB0 administrators and

employees, detailed discussion of delivery agents must await more investigation.

In the meantime, we supplement our earlier discussion of CBO

intake and varying responsibility for verification with the following

points, offered as tentative conclusion.

1. The CBOs funded by prime sponsors have previously (and often

regularly) run CETA programs, but it is not certain that they are widely

.'quipped to handle YEDPA's special services. It has been suggested that
- 42 -

those whose employees are trained to deliver social services don't know

how to design projects consistent with the regulations.

2. It is necessary to distinguish between CBOstnormal client

groups and YCCIP or YETP clients CBOs employ. In Chicago and Rockford,

CETA clients may be assigned to CBOs by a program agent or the prime

sponsor. The enrollment of a particular group by a CBO, therefore, may

not be evidence of that CBOs ability to reach a particular group.

3. Last, the OIC organization in Rockford and SER in Cook

County are not involved with YEDPA, and constitute a conspicuous omission.

IX. Coordinating Services for Youth

Interprogram Linkages

In Chicago and County, the effort to construct a matrix of

coordinated youth services wr.s weaksned by the way in which pinging

councils and CETA staffs translated the requirement to fund only

agencies of "demonrcracsd e:fectiveness." Given the time constraint

within which they had to identify service deliverers, it is little

wonder that they turned to those agencies with whom they had regularly

and previously contracted. There was no reasonable method by which they

might have investigated and evaluated the activities of the extremely

large number of private youth agencies operating within their jurisdictions.

Compiling lists of CBOs was, therefore, mere busywork. In Rockford_ it

was a ten-minute task to assemble information they already possessed,

principally because there were few private agencies doing anything for

youth.

327
- 43 -

As we know too well from past program activity, public and

private agencies not receiving funds have little or no incentive to

link up with prime sponsors. A possible exception is the Job Service.

The Employment Service in Rockford handles the YEDPA paperwork and in

Chicago it assists with eligibility verification. The Service, of

course, is not totally benevolent. Rockford's CETA office supplies

employees, and the Job Service earns credits from the state for its

Chicago work. Cook County kids who cannot be placed by subcontractors

will be referred to ISES.

There is some evidence that agencies which are YEDPA-sponsored

have agreed to provide non-financed services. According to a Chicago

youth planner, the Mayor's Office of Manpower has non-financial service

agreements for summer activities with the Employment service and eight

established program agents, one of which is the Chicago City Colleges.

The Colleges' participation in non-financial summer arrangements is

strange, since it withdrew from YEDPA because administrative costs were

not adequately reimbursed. LEA agreements rather frequently promise

student access to counselors at no charge to CETA; but presumably guidance

services are available anyway, so they can scarcely be counted as a nonfinancial contribution.

Greater coordination of services might, be achieved if the actors

had access to occupational and labor market inforamtion. Chicago, which

claims success with a section of SPED? 1977 devoted to occupational

Terms of which arc unknown to us.

32&
- 44 -

information, will repeat the intensive course this summer. Meantime, it

is taking bids for the development of information geared for youths. The

result will be offered for sub-contractors' year-round use, and hopefully

will work to remove inconsistencies in program content.

Youth staff in Rockford have put together and distributed a notebook of Dictionary of Occupational Information jobs, which are relevant

to Rockford's labor market. Along with job descriptions the notebook

contains the number of such jobs in Rockford 1978 and the number projected

in 1985. Here, too, one of the side benefits will be improved program

design and coordination.

Rockford's showcase activities are career booths in schools.

Several times each week, CETA youth staff provide career information

in the school hallways. Their records of inquiries show that 260 questions

have been received on career information and 360 questions on program

activities have been received as of April. One school superintendent

has asked the CETA staff to help design the curriculum for career education

and run a training workshop for teachers, because he was impressed with

the career booth.

Summer Programs- -LEA summer programs are summarized in a previous

table. Like school programs, most out-of-school activities will continue

through summer, and additional youths will be enrolled. Some additional

points follow.

1. Chicago youths will move from YCCIP and YETP to SPEDY. The

Chicago school board thinks salvage monoy created by late start-up may

permit them to keep some students in the same jobs. Others will have to

change jobs.
-45-

2. Rockford intends to place 240 students in the Area Vocational

Center, where they will earn two credits for academic studies and vocational exploration.

3. Cook County youths will remain with YETP and YCCIP programs,

but expand the work week and be given vocational exploration opportunities.

X. Some Bigger Issues Worthy of Consideration

With regard to the long-term impact of YEDPA, we see the following

issues as being significant. They are offered here along with the

normal set of caveats about forecasting.

The phasing-out of special revenues for financing youth programs

is likely to cause Cook County and Chicago to revert to their pre-YEDPA

level of youth services. Cuts would also be made in Rockford, but the

resulting level of service would likely be somewhat greater than the

pre-YEDPA level. Under YEDPA, the CETA youth office in Rockford has

emerged as a leader in the community. It consequently has created a unified youth constituency where fragmented organizational efforts previously

existed.

The major unknown in the future of local activities to combat youth

unemployment is the level of adult unemployment prime sponsors will face.

Prime sponsors after all are responsive to political pressures.

One important issue not yet given ample consideration is the role of

bureaucracy in adding to or detracting from YEDPA's goals. Whether or not

it is widely recognized, CETA has been bureaucratized in local governments.

In some cities, the prime sponsor's organizntion is a growth industry,

fueled by rising expenditures on employment and training policies. Bureaucracy is also found in the LEA, within sponsors and schools (and for that

matter, a few CBOs). We have observed how the arrival of YEDPA has precipi33o
-46-

tated competition for administrative control as individuals manuever to be

"where the action is" and to achieve career advancement. Though much of

this sort of internal organizational politics probably contributes to the

dynamism of public organization, there remains the possibility that the

policy objectives of YEDPA risk usurpation by organizational or personal

goals.

Other issues also seem to have been lost in the shuffle. For one

thing we should be concerned about the possibility that special employment

and training programs for youth may be raising the expectation of the

kids about their future labor-market prospects. One participant told us

she was willing to work at any job we (CETA) had for her upon graduation.

Her response raises the Spector of program-to-program transfers, from

youth programs to young adult programs.

Another issue worthy of more consideration than it has received

is the desirability of training and employment for youth when evaluated

against the benefit a youth might derive from increased instruction in

academic subjects. Obviously the issue is not a clear case of one substituting for the other, since many of the participants have already firmly

rejected academics. Rather, we must work to identify the type of treatment best suited for different types of youth.
Youth Evaluation Project

Second Interim Report: May 22, 1978

Submitted to

The National Council on Employment Policy

by

MDC, Inc.

Chapel Hill, N.C.

June, 1978

332
SUMMARY:

In reviewing employment and training programs, it seers to be

.axiomatic that the more we learn, the more we realize that we knew that

already. If this finding seems distressing, it ti perhaps not. For the

old lessons constantly re-emerge in new forms, and it is the search for

durable, encompassing forms in which to frame programs that rightly

occupies our attention.

It is a cliche that the quality of a program depends upon the

quality of the people directly in charge of it, yet that truth may well

emerge as the only incontestable finding in this examination of how programs under the Youth Employment and Demonstration Project Act are

functioning. They function well when the immediate supervision is

knowledgeable and caring and they languish when it is not.

There are, however, ,lme preliminary observations worth risking in

this second interim report from four North Carolina prime sponsorships.

We have organized this report to conform to the ten areas of inquiry

propounded by the National Council for Employment Policy and will not

attempt, in so brief a document, to summarize them under those headings

here. Instead, we will content ourselvps with observing;

That YEDPA programs are in place and functioning in all four of the

prime sponsorships reviewed in this report;

That several hundred youth are involved in a variety of programs,

both in school and out, intended to increase their capacity to hold down
unsubsidized employment at some point later on in life; and that these

programs include both vocational tracking and work experience;

That this involvement seems klearly to constitute an "add on" to

previous and continuing efforts and not a substitution for them;

That "knowledge development" is not taking place and that there

are basic misunderstandings of the potential for knowledge development

at the prime sponsor level;

That youths are being paid the federal minimum wage, $2.65 an hour,

for all ww' done in YETP and YCCIP programs in all four prime sponsorships and that this pay is generally refterdfrii-of crucial importance in

making the prograMs succeed;

That is it possible to run excellent work experience prvgrams without

great expense -- we cite one example from the Charlotte prime sponsorship --

and that the key probably is the quality of supervision, which may or may

not have something to do with the ratio of supervisor to participant (but

which probably does have something to do with the utilization of the

project-style or "team" approach);

That while the new youth programs reviewed here are generally being

run with little or no.coordination to more traditional programs, the

possibility of real institutional change is present -- there are exciting

glimmerings here and there;

And that for this institutional change to occur, some peace must he

made between conflicting CETA and public school timetables.

3'4
I. Knowledge Development

A simple assessment of how knowledge development is faring in the

four prime sponsorships under review here is that there isn't any, and

there isn't likely to be any. In two cases -- Alariance County and North

Carolina balance of state -- there is simply no knowledge development under

YETP or YCCIP planned, period. In the others, plans not yet off the

ground are generally scaled-down versions of studies that might he useful

only if conceived on a national scale. To all appearances, these latter

initiatives were intended more to conform with federal regulations than

to provide any significant. learnings.

A good example is the City of Charlotte. Pere, researchers were

told on their first visit that the knowledge development plan was provided

by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools and would be part of the LEA agreement

with that body. The plan called for providing transition school-to cork

services for 25 students who were disadvantaged and 25 who were not.

Comparisons then were to be made between these two groups of students, and

between the group as a whole with other groups made up wholly of disadvantaged students. Yet when the researcher returned three months later

(May), it (Ps apparent from the responses to questions asked of the school

officio' in charge of the program that they had not gotten the message:

Thny *Jere not planning on recruiting any non-disadvantaged students for

the particular program in question. Somewhat abashed, the school and CETA

officials huddled in the office with the researcher present and attempted

to get this initiative back on course.

335
-2-

In Durham-Orange the knowledge development effort was divided into

two pieces. One was to be an attempt to study the premise that work

experience decreases the dropout rate and increases achievement in school.

Four groups totaling approximately 100 sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds

were to be tested, in-school and out-of-school work experience participants and corresponding groups of youth who applied but were not accepted

for these programs. The second part of the plan called for observations

on reading problems through testing at the assessment stage, with basic

education and tutorial improvement methods compared.

Actually, nothing of the kind has been done so far. Our researcher

observed that the prime appeared "too busy running programs" to involve

itself in knowledge development. In fact, there is doubt that this prime

has the capability of mounting and carrying out an extensive coutrolgroup experiment such as the one contemplated for the in-school and out-nfschool work experience participants.

There is some evidence both here and elsewhere that the knowledge

development plans submitted by many primes amounted to little more than

"window dressing" considered necessary to obtain the youth grants. It was

thought in some places that the fancier the knowledge development strategy,

the more likelihood of passing muster for funding. Given stringent time

frames in which to work, the primes, upon funding, seemed to be turning

their backs on the knowledge development pieces as the least necessary

elements in their programs.

It is difficult to see that much real thought has pone into what

knowledge development might moan to a local prime. MAC researchers have

observed in this and in other studies that primes tend to think of

knowledge development in somewhat grandiose terms, involving controlled

336
-3--

experiment. Yet the numbers of students involved are so small that any results obtained would hardly merit national credence. At the same time,

good opportunities for the development of knowledke at the local level -- through careful observation or follow-up, for instance -- are being wasted.

It is too early for final judgements, but it is possible that what

local primes need most to encourage knowledge development is a little time

in which to plan and some modest technical asastance and encouragement

to try to learn something about their own operations that is within their

means to learn.

II. Content and Quality of Work Experience

Here there are definite signs of life and hopes for improvement over

traditional work experience amidst confused readings having to do with the

quality of job preparation actually coming out of the work being done.

In three of the four prime sponsorships at least some identifiable

work experience is being utilized in both YETP and YCCIP programs. The

amount of work experience is heavier in the YCCIP programs, which tend to

focus wholly on out-of-school youth in need of 40-hour' -a-week employment.

On the other hand, the in-school work experience tied to vocational and

remedial instruction would appear to offer Sgher quality than in all but

a few YCCIP programs, such as one being conetc.ted in Charlotte.

The ratio of supervisors to participants in work experience programs

examined in these four sites varied sharply, but Te& are left with two

impressions: First, that there is a spirt, of "rev . in the 'TWA

programs that may make a positive contrihurio, 8urervisory level;

second, that the simple numerical recitation of suner, cry ratio -- one to

ten or one to twenty, for example -- nit - reliable c.Idex of the quality

4 ;:,';
-4-

or efficiency of supervision, and may even be misleading in this respect.

In the balance ofstate operation, for instance, the top youth

supervisor noted that the YCCIP projects have you'th working "together,

rather than having one here and one there." She raised this observation

in commenting favorably on projects with ratios.of one supervisor to 10

participants -- a ratio higher than that-'posted by other progrars, ineluding a number traditionally operated under Title I. And the "project

style" work programs observes) in the field seemed to us to exhibit this

spirit of "pulling together" -reflecting wise supervision developing a

community of interest among participants. A supervisory ratio of five to

one, on the other hand, can be a numerical way of describing a situation

in which one supervisor drops in casually on each of five isolated, separatelyworking participants once a week. Examples here illustrate the danger of

a too-literal reading of statistical indices of the "quality" of supervision.

Academic credit for work experience appears to be a significant

problem in North Carolina. Not only are state regulations on granting of

this credit stringent, but the attitude of even the most enlightened

local educators is far from favorable. One Durham-Orange school

principal suggested that the way participants should gain academic credit

is by returning to school full-time. Others have expressed less rigidity.

In Charlotte, for instance, some 95 YETP participants are involved in a

vocational training-work experience-academic enrichment program that does

offer academic credit. These in-school participants have been identified

by school counselors as likely dropouts -- "the ones we think we are going

to lose." They are working in a variety of jobs with non-profit agencies

15 hours a week at $2.65 an hour (all work experience in the four primes

reviewed here is being paid at the federal minimum wage level) and gaining

8 38
one-half credit as part of their elective unit credit. A school supervisor

told us that if they were to begin the program at the beginning of the

next school year, they could obtain a full unit of credit (thirteen units

are required for graduation).

But when we asked whether they saw means of providing academic credit

for out-of-school youth through work experience, school officials told us that resistance is high in the school bureacracy (particularly among high

school principals) even to granting credit for woe.. experience under the

strictest supervision. They saw no likelihood of acadeLsic credit being

granted for any work experience that did not involve (1) formalized

training, (2) related work to the participants' vocational track, and

(3) academic supervision.

At the same time the two school officials closest to the program

are highly enthusiastic about it. "We weren't at first," one said, "hut

when we saw how well it could work, how well we could tie the work into

the school effort,. and that we might really save these kids . . . and then

the employers began calling to compliment us on how well the kids are

doing." This particular official, a veteran of 25 years of vocational

education experience, maintains that Yrxr is the best program he has ever

been involved with. The major concern of thin LEA (with a 22 percent nonfinancial agrehment) in "losing" program participants who are only juniors -- the majority are in this category -- through Inability to continue the

program. "We've only lost three so far," one official observed, "but

there is need for continuity. . ."

The Charlotte prime.sponsor maintains that YETWA participants are

indeed involved in a new class of work -- "youth-oriented tpublic service"

ti 339
-6-

is the way one CETA administrator described these jobs. Requirements that

jobs be with non-profit agencies have tipped participation in this direction somewhat the list of participating agencies includes the YMCA's,

day care centers, Salvation Army, Boys' and Girls' clubs, etc. The

challenge, in fact, has been to find jobs in now-profit agencies suited

to the vocational preferences of the participants -- "it's not easy to

find auto mechanic jobs in the YMCA," one counselor noted. A great

deal probably depends upon the amount of time school officials spend

trying to match the students to the sorts of jobs that are available.

Charlotte's program has students in horticulture, radio-TV, and computer

sciences, for example. In Alamance County a female student is working

as an."auto body repair aide" part-time and attending automobile body

repair training at Alamance Technical Institute (one of the state's member institutions in the community college system) -- and she is using the

three units of credit she is receiving for the work experience to graduate

from high school. Four other YETP participants in Alamance are working

25 hours per week in a community center (15 hours a week extended day

school program) doing maintenance work, but also supervising Title I

work experience participants -- a track that might be labeled "work

supervision experience."

What is not clear is how many of the work experience lobe develoned

are really "quality" jobs. The auto body shop repair worker and future

horticulturist, aside, many jobs anpear from their labels to resemble

more traditional youth work experience positions as "aides" of one sort

or another. In Alamance, the prime confesses that it has more "quality

jobs" than it has quality participants them. It appears that this

question -- as well as questions relating to the quality of supervision

340
-7-

and other vital matters -- are not answerable at the level of the prime

sponsors, even including the individual most diliectly responsible for the

programs. It is only as we were able to look at the participants, supervisors, and jobs up close that we could obtain information that seemed

valid. To 4 constdcrahle degree, in some part due to the subcontracting

procedure, the speed with which the YEI)PA programs were mounted, and

prime sponsor involvement in a variety of other initiatives, the quality

of information about VERA programs at the prime level is poor.

In its ?'arch Quarterly Summary of Youth Characteristics, the Charlotte

prime noted: "The program operators have experienced some difficulty in

placing Career Employment Experience participants in high auality,

meaningful worksites, i.e., worksites that will fill the program's objective of providing skill development for future employment." The report

went on to say that special efforts were being made to improve the quality

of jobs developed. For all this, we could find no evidence indicating

that the prime sponsor knew the quality of the jobs already developed. At

our suggestion a form was devised to indicate the number of professional,

technical, clerical, maintenance, etc., jobs developed. The form was sent

out to the subcontractors, but at this writing had not been returned.

Another question difficult to answer at this point is whether the

youth are involved in work experience that can lead directly to jobs,

particularly private sector jobs. The YCCIP work experience would appear

to offer the best look at this question, as it has been applied generally

to dropouts on a full-time basis. But here again, there is a mixed bap.

Some YCCIP programs seem to offer only minimal opportunity for the future.
-8-

The single Alamanee County project, for instance, involves 18 youths in

the, inspection of the homes of senior citizens for security and hazards.

Since the participants do no actual work on the homes, the project "product" depends upon the willingness of the senior citizens to act on whatever ..dvice they receive about locks or dangerous wiring, etc., and the

applicability of this work to permanent employment for the YCCIP participants is, at best, questionable.

On the other hand, one yecir program we saw :;.n Charlotte seems to be

something of a mode] to this point. Run undr,r :-111contract by the Family

Housing Service, a CHO, it involves nine youth -- eight black moles and

one white female -- in a variety of renovation projects dealing with

homes of the elderly and poor.

When we visited this project one sunny morning, we found the youths

working on the roof of an old church's recreation building, a structure

that obviously had been abandoned to crows and winos some years ago. From

the inside, where a variety of workbenches had been set up in a clutter,

it was obvious that only one-half of the building would be habitable even by derelicts in bad weather the roof on the other side was a tatter

through which sunlight fell to the floor.

The supervisor in charge of work turned out to be a construction

engineer with experience as superintendent in a major construction company

in Charlotte. He explained that the project had two purposes: "First

the kids are learning roofing, guttering, a lot of allied things; second,

they are fixing up this place to use for a clubhouse and recreation area while we work on other projects." The crew is working on several other

home renovation projects, including one in which they will actually buy a

312
-9-

house and participate in its non-profit re-sale.

Despite the fact that no academic credit is offered in this project,

a generous overlay of academic work is involved. The supervisor has

taught blueprint reading, some basic electrical theory, roofing, guttering,

screening, cutting down and fitting glans for wfndovs, any' some carpentry.

On Wednesday afternoons the participants have world-of-work orientatien.

On rainy days, the good side of the church recreation building is used

for a classroom. "After today," the supervisor said with a glance up at the

roof, "both sides will be ery."

The supervisor was enthusiastic about the potential these youths

have for employment. "I've got places Y could put some of them rirht now."

1!e maintains that discipline problems have been minimal, that only one

of the crew has a tendency to slack off. It vas obvious after a couple

of hours on the site the one youth required some encouragenent to continue

to work. Two Title VI adults, both skilled in one phase or another of

home renovation, were involved in work with the youths, but the youths

themselves seemed to be on the case of the idler, whenever he seemed inclined to loaf. Once the supervisor spoke to him and he got back on the

job promptly.

We talked with several of these youths during the day. One, a 11-yearold male who had held jobs since he was 14, described his motivation this

way: "Pour dollars an hour for a roofer's helper. Maybe six up to eight

for some other jobs, carpenter, you know . . . man, that's not bad money."

But for the YCCIP program, he said he might well he in the Army now. "I

may still go in the Army when this is over . . ." but, clearly, he sees

options now.

343
-10-

The 18-year-old female maintains that she suffers from a hatred of

four walls. She had a part-time secretarial job, .;Bich she despised,

when the youth program came down and she saw it as an opportunity to work

and at the same time finish up her high school degree requirements at the

local community college. She thinks of hor future now in terms of college

. . . "but I might take carpentry, electrical work, something like that

as well as art now. I never would have said carpentry or electrical work

before this job." She says the crew usually shows up at the site even

before the supervisor gets there. "This; Li the first lob I've ever hart

where I showed up on time," she observed.

In a matter of a few how's the crew had nailed dorm the shingles on the airy side of the roof. Trom below, inside the buildinps, the holes had

disappeared.

The supervisor feels that he could handle perhaps as many as 2n or

25 youths In a crew situation without losing efficiency. The prime sponsor

considers the on-site supervision the strong-point of the entire program.

"I don't care what you say about ratios- 'of supervisors," one veteran TAT

administrator told us, "I know there have sometimes been 350 kids for five

counselors in Title I programs. As far as I am concerned most of the

traditional youth programs can be described as strictly 'income maintenance.'"

III. Youth Participation

With one possible exception, the participation of youth in the planning

of youth programs, as members of the required advisory council or in any

other capacity, so far, is pro forma. Youth participation in administration

of or evaluation of rnm programs is nonexistent.

3 4
Each of the four prime sponsors reviewed complied with regulations

by placing youth on a council advisory.to the youth programs. In Charlotte,

there are three youth members of the CETA Manpower Planning Council which

numbers a total of 20 members. The youth are on the planning subcommittee

and h-ve been attending meetings. While they have spoken up in at least

one meeting, there is no sign as yet that they will have significant

impact on planning or implementation of programs.

In Durham-Orange, there are three youth members on the council but

attendance is reportedly poor, a fact that may he attributable in some rart

to an inability of the youth members to relate to adults on the council -- most of them professionals who apparently do not have the time or desire

to make the new young council members feel welcome and needed.

The balance of state North Carolina Employment and Training Council

has two youth members hose participation is described by the chief CETA

administrative officer for the youth programs as "very, very weak." She

describes the youths as attending some meetings, but not involving themselves in

the discussions. The problem is further complicated in a balance-of-state

council, where the choice often is between selecting youth from the carital

city because it is where the council meets, and thereby not representing

other areas of the state, or selecting youth from other areas and finding

some means of transporting them to the meetings.

In Alai ance County, eight youths ranging in age from 16 to 20 are

involved in reviewing youth program planning and, to a lesser extent,

program implementation. According to the youth services director, they

take their jobs seriously, a situation that has not always been the case.

Youth originally selected to sit on the council, hand-picked by the nrime

3 4 5
sponsor and school officials;, lost interest in council activities,

dropped out of school, or otherwise becnme inactive. In replacing them,

the prime sponsor asked for volunteers from the YEDFA participants.

Response was good and from the group of volunteers, the prime selected

those who seemed most interested and willing to participnte.

At present, the youth members are involved in several aspects of the

work done by the council, including participant counseling and problemsolving, but not in program implementation, administration or evaluation.

The director commented that the activity of these youth in sufficiently

vigorous that he hne expected one youth member to veto the prime's summer

plan when it was presented to the council. Mien asked what would have

ensued had this happened, the director made it plain that if efforts to

forestall the veto had failed, it would have been over-ruled.

Issues of minority or participant involvement in planning and

implementation of E&T programs have keen explored for a numker of years

now. If one thing has been learned, it is that involvement occurs only

to the extent that participation is seen by the participant as desired by

whoever is perceived as running the program and as potentially productive.

That is to say, participation must be seen an substantive rather than as

a formality. It would appear that in the prime sponsors reviewed here, at

least, the matter of youth participation has been treated as something

necessary in the regulations and has been carried out without much thought

to achievement, or at least without much consideration that such participation really might result in substantive changes in programs.

IV. Targeting

One of the long-term gains stemmine from running employment and train31G
-13--

ing programs may be that after some years it no longer becomes necessary

to mandate the participation of disadvantaged individuals. While the

YEDPA regulations do not make being disadvantaged a requirement, the youth

program director for North Carolina BOS noted that "a long standing viewpoint has been carried over from Title T -- the people certifying applicants

are actually afraid to enroll persons who are not disadvantaged." (She

made haste to add that this did not mean that nondisadvantaged were being

rejected, but only that' isadvantaged had a definite priority.)

Whether for this reason or through more deliberate goal-setting, the

percentage of disadvantaged youth enrolled in YEDPA programs in the four

primes reviewed here is high -- approximately 81 percent. The Charlotte

prime sponsor fell somewhat short of its goal for enrolling disadvantaged

youth -- 79 percent of plan -- in its second auarterly summary, but this

could be attributed to a general lag in cranking up the two youth programs,

which had only filled 75 percent of planned positions by then.

It is not clear that other specific rarticipant targets have been

selected by any of these primes. The Durham-Orange prime sponsor indicated

in its youth plan that primary consideration would be given to students

who are economically disadvantaged and/or who have other problems such as

mental or physical handicaps, court records, or repeated failures in

school. The second quarterly report indicated that only 18 of the 117

enrollees were offenders, however. A total of 56, on the other hand, were

dropouts.

The decision whether to concentrate on dropoUts (or out-of-school youth)

or on in-school youth is one that seems to have been met differently in the
-14-

various primes. There is a tendency to go with older, out-of-school

youth in the YCCIP programs, naturally enough, as these are often fulltime jobs. But the numbers of YCCIP participants are small and the

degree of stress on dropouts in the YETP programs seems to depend, largely,

on how much LEA involvement has been obtained. 'Where that is heaviest,

the concentration is heaviest on in-school youth, although in Alamance

the YETP program deals principally with dropouts.

Racial mix is also a function of the individuality of the programs,

more particularly with the racial composition of the area. Durham-Orange,

for instance, with a heavy black population, produces a program in which

1.09 of the 117 participants are black. In Alamance County, on the other

hand, the racial mix between white and black is about even.

While CB0 involvement in the youth programs is moderate to heavy

throughout the prime sponsorships reviewed, it does not seem to have made

much difference so far as targeting is concerned. While the Alamance

prime commented that CBOs were chosen for their specific ability to reach

the disadvantaged, the prime sponsor itself handled all recruitment,

assessment, and orientation.

One piece of unintentional targeting may be worth mentioning. In

Charlotte, the YETI' program had enrolled at the end of tfarch a total of

134 females and only 75 males. The quarterly summary noted that the prime

was re-doubling efforts to get male participants but when we discussed

the problem with officials of the prime they were mystified at its cause.

Did it relate to an inability to develop jobs of sufficient auality to

attract male youth? Was.it a function of having concentrated the-YFTP

program on in-schOol youth, where females may be hanging in there while

males drop out? Or was it -- as one Employment Service official guessed --

3.1 8
a matter of the boys being willing and able to get fast food store jobs

at night while girls are not? No one seemed sure.

Generally, income Oigibility is being determined by requiring the

youths to bring in their parents' W-2 forms from the previous yenr,

check stubs, and identification such as drivers' licenses. Status as

recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children is sometimes checked

by te3ephoning social service offices.

V. Substitution

While the issue of substitution is .a difficult one to determine

accurate]y, preliminary indications are that it may be overrated as an

issue. All of the prime snonsors reviewed in this study were able to

satisfy the simplest test of substitution we were able to devise -- a

comparison of the number and percentage of vonth involved in Title I

programs as of the second quarter of Fiscal 1977 with those same figures

for the second quarter of Fiscal -978.

The results were typified by Charlotte. In the second quarter of

Fiscal 1977, a total of 740 individuals were being served by Title I,

of whom 510 -- or 69 percent -- were youth. Figures for the comparable

period a year later, after passage of YEDPA and cranking up of YEDPA

programs, werei Total Title I served 7]9, of whom 582, or 81 percent, are

youth. Here, while the total individuals served under Title I declined,

the total youth served under this title actually increased in real numbers

as well as in percentage.

Balance-of-State North Carolina makes its case against substitution

from another perspective. Officials there argue that the entire BOS YETP
program consists of special academic programs involving youth who had

not.been previously served, and that the YCCIP programs, involving only

170 slots for the BOS, are involved in producing tangible results and are performing, essentially, new services. They maintain that all this leaves

littler room for substitution.

But there are subtleties of program emphasis and reporting that make

it difficult to state, categorically, that substitution is not occurring.

In Alamance, for instance, while the number of youth served in the combined

Titles I, II, and VI did not decline between the second quarter of Fiscal

1977 and 1978, the ancentape of youth served did decline. In other words,

more adults were served proportionately between the two years. Does this

suggest that if YEDPA were not around, fewer adults and more youths woo*

have been served in Title I? It is anybody's guess.

There are straws in the wind similarly puzzling in virtually all of

the programs we have visited in this study and in others. In Charlotte,

for instance, the Employment Service individual in charge of recruiting for

the upcoming Title I summer program commented to us that she had already

begun to feel the effects of the new youth programs. "Some of my

employers have already taken on YEDPA bids," she said, "and where they had

taken 10 Title I summer kids last year, they may take, say, only six this

year." Obviously, if this spurs her job developers into creating new slots

for the Title I youth -- some 2,500 applicants are expected for 1,000

slots -- there will be no substitution. If not, then final Fiscal 1978

figures will show a decline in service to Title I youth in summer programs,

and some substitution will have occurred.
Our hunch is that figures will not be

large and the impact wiIl ruL be While it is probably inevitable

that there will be some La3satution, it is not likely to be visible or

appreciable and will always be difficult to prove. The YEDPA "numbers"

are small in any event. The new impetus toward .1roject style work experience and closely related classroom and worksite learnings will establish

a new "style" of pre-employment experience for youth if it does anything

of significance at all. In a demonstration program, this is the process

most worth examining, whether or not it produces a certain amount of

service overlap as a byproduct.

VI. Overhead

In all prime sponsorships reviewed the Employment Eerviee is working

in one capacity or another in the youth programs. here and there, Un's

are supplying a variety of materials 'and services free of charge, schools

have donated office space, telephones and various kinds of office equipment.

Equipment and materials used worksites are provided by the "employers"

as they would be for any employee, subsidized or not, and in all cases

where transportation is supplied, it is being supplied free of charge.

The main addition in terms of overhead to the prime sponsorships

the youth programs is in the form of administrative costs.

VII. Institutional Chanre

The words "institutional charge" are impressive. They denote the

sort of major advance in functional coordination that do not occur readily.

It is impossible to see any real institutional change occurring the early
ABmonths of YEDPA, but there are some good, healthy signs of potential.

There is also at least one major problem that must be overcome if this

potential is to have any chance of being fulfilled.

Based on this study and others, the most significant feature

for lung-range institutional change in YEDPA is its mandatory 22 percent

cooperative agreement with local educational. agencies. In a number of

prime sponsorships, a considerably larger share of YEDPA money has been

put into non-financial agreements with the educational establishment.

In North Carolina HOS for instance, the agreement is closer to

60 percent of the total funding. Because of the nature of the nos, with

120 local education agencies, an agreement was signed with the State Board

of Education for the administration of specialized educational service.

centers in 59 school systems and the placement of youth opportunity specialists in the remaining 61 school systems. The contract Places resnonsibility for developing the agreements with local education agencies with

the State Board -- with a provision that YET!' funds cannot be used to

supplant state or local funds used for the same purposes. LEA's are bound

to "agree to cooperate with ongoing North Carolina BOS prime sponsor

monitoring efforts and to coordinate program activities and services with

other programs under CETA."

While the language here is sufficiently vague to raise questions

about its ultimate impact on the wav things are done, there are signs

that for the first time the atmowThere is right for a convergence of

effort on the part of the state's educational and employment/training

institutions. The first meeting ever of the full. State Board of Education

and the North Carolina -Employment and Training Council was held last month.

352
-19-

Governor James Eunt addiessed the two bodies assembled and urged them tc

help coordinate a state-wide effort to forge an unbroken link for youths

between school and work. One of the subjects set aside for further

consideration by a subcommittee was the issue of academic credit for work

experience.

There are similarly encouraging signs at the local level. In

Charlotte the enthusiasm of the school of."cials working most directly

with the prime sponsor is infectuous. rveryone agrees that without the

CETA "pay" for the youth, there would he no such program. With this

feature, the Charlotte schools are actually expanding their cooperative

education/distrilluive education programs to accommodate the YEDPA

initiative. This is particularly interesting in view of recent poor

relations between the Charlotte schools and CETA office stemming from a

scrndal of last year involving the misuse by a few tndivdiva]s of ('ETA

summer funds. "Watching the attorneys for the schools and for us working

out the LEA agreement was like watching two teams of international spies

working for opposite sides trying to protect their countries' interests,"

one CI TA official commented.

Yet YLUPA in Charlf.k. now includes a strongly oriented YETP proem..

through the school system and a secondary effort to involve up to 50 of

the youth in pose...secondary work in the city's local community college.

In Purham-Orange, the prime sponsor is working with the school districts,

local employers, and other private sector members to create a resource directory

of "experts" which would be used for career planning purposes. In addition,

work is underway in conjunction with school officials to develop workshops,

seminars, and field trips for selected groups of stbeents. The nurhamOrange office has hired a full-time occupational specialist whose areas of

353
-20-

responsibility include establishing links with the private sector and Improving the quality of occupational information available to students.

For all of these flutterings of progress, a single problem

threatens to dash hopes for real institutional change in the future.

Simply described, the annual timetables for the 'schools and for CETA sadly

and damagingly cnnflict.

Asked whether CETA and LEA planning cycles are compatil:le, the

chief youth official for the North Carolina balance of state repliedi

"Certainly not." She detailed a list of problems caused b7; the inability

of CETA and school planners to coordinate educational worl with trainine

programs. l'or example, she said, remedial classes in mathematics and

English cannot be coordinated closely with the routines of YEDPA participants when the two types of programs start at different tires in the

calendar year.

CETA and school officials in Charlotte put the problem in even more

emphatic terms. "It could be the difference in the long run between

YEDPA's success and failure," a CETA official noted.

For instance, the YEDPA programs got under way in ! "arch, essentially

in mid-stream so far as the academic year was concerned. "That's o.1:," a

CETA counselor said, "because we could make up for that problem; but if

we are going to be held to trying to bring CETA and the education system

together when they continue to operate on different schedules, we are not

going to succeed."

The big worry at the moment on the part of CETA and school officials

is over the potential loss of YETP participants who are juniors in high

school. These students are funded only through June at the present time.

334
-21-

If they cannot he funded through the summer, one sort of problem is raised.

Ilut,if there is no funding for the school system to re-instate the programs in August, in time for the beginning of the 1978 -79 school year, then

school officials predict a number of the YETP participants will be irrevocably lust. "They will be dropouts. Whatever happens in the way of funding after that could be too late for them," one school official said.

VIII. Choosing Delivery Agents

There seems little to choose between the four prine sponsorships

reviewed on most of the questions pertinent to choice of eelivery agents.

The CBOs are heavily involved to YEDPA in every case. The attitude

toward them by the prime snonsor varies from tolerance and grudging

respect to silent but nonetheless expressive dislike. We could f'ne no

hard evidence that more disadvantao.ed individuals are being served as a

result of CBO involvement.

There seems to be a degree of skepticism on the part of the prime

sponsors that CBO's can operate as cheaply or effectively as they (nrime

sponsor) can. One CE TA official in North Carolina LOS commented that the

smaller the orgari7ation, usually the higher the costs -- a clear reference

to an assumed "higher cost" for CRO operations.

It does seem likely that CEO involvement has broadened the base of

community support for the youth programs. Given the less-than-warm

feelings most of the primes under review here exhibited toward CD0s, it

seems reasonable to suppose that they would not have been chosen to run the programs but for the legislative mandate in that direction.

In Charlotte, four- (:Os are involved in the youth proFxam. They

are solid, experienced or:!anizations with considerable history of

355
aervice in the community. The prime here showed no antipathy to CEOs,

and indeed had to call upon two of them to run the YCCIP programs when an

invitation to submit proposals brought no takers.' "1-!e're delighted so

far with what they are doing," one Charlotte official told us.

There appeats to be little coordination, however, between what the

CJ Os are doing youth programs and whatever else is poinp on with youth

programs in the community. In Charlotte it was clear that to find out

what was happening in the programs, you had to go out to the sites.

IX. Coordinatfcig Services for Youth

There is little evidence of coordination of services for Youth, if

by this 'A is meant that a variety of yont services provided under a single sponsorship are to be meshed in some way. To a considerable extent,

the youth programs are being operated separately -- Title I separately,

for instance, from Title. III. Prime sponsors reviewed for this report

considered that they had enough to do in the time frame allotted

without making extraordinary efforts to tie programs already in existence

to the YEDPA programs.

At the same time, the existence of the new programs as Summer

approached raised some coordination problems that could not be avoided. In

three of the prime sponsorships reviewed there was confidence that the.

YEDPA youth who wanted summer positions with SPEDY would be able to get

them. The fourth prime sponsorship -- Charlotte -- seemed less certain of

this, possibly as a result of a planned exnension of the SPED? program to

meet a greater demand than bad been experienced in the past.

356
-23-

YCCIP projects seem even more independent and less subject to

coordination with any other ongoing programs. Coordination here generally

amounts to working with the Employment service for job referrals.

One prime sponsor said that the service inventories prepared at the

beginning of the program served to provide information that otherwise

would noc have been available. Others said that the inventories were

merely a chore required by DOI, and had no real use.

X. Keeping Future Options Open

We tried to answer the questions in this section by asking a broad,

overall question first: That would happen if YEDPA were to end tomorrow?

The answer to this question in that, apart from the fact that services

would end for the youth enrolled, very little would change. ProbaLly the

only significant chanre would be that new positions would have to be found

for nine new CETA employees brought on board by North Carolina BO" to

supervise YEDPA.
NCEP =Ili EVALUATION PROJECT

SDIND INTERIM REPORT

REGION X

Bonnie Snedeker

Osoro and Associates

May 24, 1978

358
INIECCUCTICN

The report which follows is a descriptive assessment of the implementation, operation and implications of new youth programs being conducted

under YEDPA by four prime sponsors in Region X. The prime sponsors

participating in this study are: Kitsap County, Washington, The City of

Portland, Lane County, Oregon, and Oregon Balance of State. The research

focuses on prime sponsor YETP and YCCIP program activities. This report

is the second in a series of interim research reports prepared for. the

National Council on Employment Policy's Youth Evaluation Project. This

research project, which is being funded by the Labor Department, will

culminate in a final series of comprehensive case study reports based on

research findings in identified prime sponsor areas in each region.

The first interim report, which was canpleted in January, 1978,

covered program planning and the early implementation of youth programs.

This report penetrates further into the implementation period and discusses

prime sponsor activities in relationship to the ten principles outlined

for YEDPA activities in the Youth Planning Charter. The report is based

on information collected in on-site visits; interviews with program planners,

operators, and participants; analysis of prime sponsor planning documents

and program materials; and data made available by Region X ETA. Except

for quotations as noted, the opinions expressed within this report are

those of the author.

The author was able to spend only a limited number of days on-site

in each prime sponsor area. The scope of observation and level of perception that was provided by this exposure was dependent, at least in part,

on the relative size and complexity of individual prime sponsor systems.

For example, in Kitsap County, it was possible to examine each major program

component and interview staff in all phases of program activity, as the

program is small and relatively simple. It was not possible to cover the

larger and more complex systems nearly so thoroughly. Oregon Balance of

State was the most geographically diverse and organizationally complex

sponsorship and it was necessary in 44lis case to limit on-site research to

two local districts.

A total of 50 people were interviewed during the course of phase two

research. Of these, about one fourth were youth, including participants

and council representatives. Another fourth of those interviewed were youth

program planners and/or administrators on prime sponsor CETA staffs.

Interviews were held with nine people associated with local education agencies,

including school district administrators, CETA coordinators, counselors, and

teachers. The remainder of those interviewed were associated with some

phase of CETA operations, including intake workers, counselors, job developers,

employing supervisors, program monitors and YCCIP operators. All of those

who participated in the interviews were helpful and candid in providing

information and insight on program activities. I especially apprediate the

help provided by the following people, who coordinated on-site schedules and

served as principal contacts during this phase of the research:

Kitsap County:

Portland:

Oregon:

Lane County:

Jim Frazier

Melinda McDonald

Jim Dyer

Nancy Anderson

i

359
I. KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT

Knowledge development activities are underway in each of the four

prime sponsor areas. In spite of initial confusion and some delays, prime

sponsors are moving forward with knowledge development efforts. The sheer

diversification in the activities being conducted under this rubric can be

taken as a sign that same flexibility was afforded by federal guidelines.

However, there is also evidence 1,na... she confusion surrounding the knowledge

development mandate acted as a redtiction to local initiative as sponsors

sought increased clarification from 7he region. In each case, knowledge

development activities are expected to result in products, processes, or

outcomes which will have a favorable impact on local program systems. In

all but one prime sponsorship, knowledge development activities are related

to same type of programmatic experiment. Each prime sponsor plans to

prepare a narrative report summarizing experiences and outcomes. The

knowledge development strategies of the prime sponsors vary in the extent

to which:

(a) They attempt to address "impact" vs. "process" questions,

(b) They have been structured to provide specific evaluative output,

(c) They carry a potential significance for a broad range of youth

program concerns vs. a narrower focus on specific aspects of

the Oogram.

In Kitsap County, knowledge development goals are focused on an experiment with individual learning plans in the new in-school component.

Learning plans developed for each participant involve basic job analysis

and result in the specification of skill objectives to be pursued while

on the job. The plans are proving to be useful in a number of ways:

(1) They promote understanding between the employer and the participant by defining a specific set of experiences and skill objectives

at the outset of the employment experience.

(2) They help to upgrade the quality of work experience and supervision

by maintaining a focus on diversified training related goals.

(3) They provide a tool for monitoring the progress of individual

participants while in the program.

(4) They provide the employer with a job description.

(5) They provide full documentation of competencies gained on the job,

which can be used to secure academic credit from local school

districts.

(6) They provide the participant with a record of skills and experiences

gained, which can be used for preparing a resume or planning future

education or employment goals.

-1-

360
In addition to its positive effects on the in-school program, the

impact of this experiment is already being felt on the rest of the Kitsap

cerA system. A modified learning plan approach is being implemented for

work experience participants in out-of-school YETP and the Title I JAWS

program. The tool will also be adpated for use this summer in SPED!.

Knowledge development activities in Portland are focused on broad

accountability and evaluation goals. The prime sponsor is designing an

evaluation format base! on accountability standards that have been identified for key program components. This effort began with an initial focus

on YEDPA funded ccaponents or activities and will eventually encompass the

entire range of CETA youth services. CETA staff and council members are

identifying specific goals to be incorporated into contracts. Reporting

and evaluation systems are being revamped to promote tighter managerial

control and to provide better evaluation information for feedback into the

planning process. This direction was assigned priority prior to YEDPA

enactment, but the knowledge development provisions gave the prime sponsor

the funds and mandate to work on accountability goals on a comprehensive

basis.

In Lane Cbunty, knowledge development activity is focused on a pilot

program that pairs mentally retarded youth with non-retarded YETP participants in a work experience situation. The project is being conducted by

the University of Oregon under contract to the prime sponsor. Sane difficulty

has been experienced in getting the pilot off the ground. Originally the

prime sponsor planned to draw on YETP flexibility to enroll a number of

non - income eligible youth. But in consultation with the regional office, it

was determined that the project design did not meet appropriate experimental

criteria for use of this option. As it has been nearly impossible to identify

a sufficient number of clients among the trainable mentally retarded (TMR)

population who are income eligible for YETP, the prime sponsor plans to use

other funds to cover the enrollment of unemployed persons in the TMR population.

The progress and outcomes for both mentally retarded and non-retarded youth

participating in pilot project will be tracked and documented. Beyond

tracking the benefit to individual clients participating in the innovative

program, the University of Oregon will be responsible for developing two

packages. The first will be a job analysis training manual which details

procedures for breaking down tasks involved in work experience and OJT jobs

for youth, structuring arrangements for academic credit, and developing objective measures of success and learning. This package will be useful for

application in other phases of youth activity conducted under Title I and

Title III. The second package will pertain to the use of task analysis in

special programs for the mentally retarded.

Oregon BOS is conducting a program experiment involving non-income

eligible youth. Sub - grantees in two districts (6 and 12) are enrolling

both income eligible and non-income-eligible youth in in-school and outof-school programs. The status of participants in these two groups at

termination and after three months will be analyzed andLcompared. Outcomes

for matching groups in Districts 4, 13 and 14 will be compared to those of

-2-

3 c
the experiment groups. The variables to be examined include the incidence

of academic credit granted, employment rates, and wage levels. The

immediate question to be addressed by this experiment is whether there

are differential benefits from program services for non-income-eligible

vs. eligible participants. The BOB staff, however, admits that such

findings may prove to be of limited practical utility. But the experiment

is also seen as a broader test of the feasibility of addressing this type of

evaluation question-fram a state perspective in a highly decentralized BOB

system. Participants involved in the experiment are being enrolled and

their progress in the program tracked through normal MIS channels. The

basic evaluation approach has been worked out, but specific follow-up

methodologies have not yet been determined. It is unclear how far the

Manpower Planning Division'can go toward formalizing evaluation methodology and responsibilities in sub-grantee areas under the existing BOB

system. MPD staff are trying to be flexible in providing the districts with options on how follow-up is conducted, but the effect that such diversity will have on the integrity of the experiment is uacert%in.

II. CORIENT AND QUALITY OF WORK EXPERIENCE

On -site observation and the interviews conducted during phase II suggest that prime sponsors are not only aware that YEDPA emphasizes

improvements in job quality, but they are also highly supportive -f the focus on quality job creation. The extent to which work experience is linked to

training and educational activities, is supplemented by adequate job information and counseling, and ties in with viable career opportunities

for youth seems to vary considerably among prime sponsorships as well as

within. each prime sponsor system, according to-programmodel,target population, operator and work site. But it is clear that the trend is away

from the "make-work/income maintenance" approach ansoc'sted with general work experience toward an enriched career employment orientation. There

is little evidence that prime sponsors Pr' working with public or private

sector employers in restructuring organi to a' ow for new job

classifications at the entry level or to dew lop formal career ladders for

youth. This kind of job restructuring is am:.idered to be beyond the

practical reach of most prime sponsc,7.; at present time. However, the

tendency to develop job opportunitie, on an !Adividualized basis, in response

to participant training needs, interests aLl ,.:areer goals, rather than

blocks of job "slots," is resulting iLa an inc'. using diversification of

occupational opportunities and inprove!Jents the quality of training,

supervision and job exposure associate.) u4-7:work experience.

A noticeable trend in the prograL utes studied is a W.Lift away from

work experience as the major tool in youth programming. (e,.. Table 2 in the appendix) While prime sponsors are working with local eemation agencies to

create or redesign componente oroviding enriched part thrf., job .4,:verience and career development service for in-school youth, they are Plw de-emphasizing traditional work experience in out-of-school componems. Briphasis is being placed on the total packaging of services fcr: out-of-school youth,

-3-

362
including GED or high school completion, counseling, career research, and

job seeking skills as well as on-thHob experience in the public or private

sector. For example, in Lane County, less than 20 percent of YETP participants are currently enrolled in work experience. Work experience is limited

to short term placements which fit into a broader package of training,

education or other services aimed at helping participants to meet individually

defined self-sufficiency goals.

In Portland also, work experience is considered to be only a part of a

total service package, and while out-of-school youth may be placed in general

work experience on a temporary, or stort-term basis to meet immediate income

needs, the focus is definitely on career development involving individually

contracted training, education and 'ork opportunities. The initial objective

for the high school dropout is almat always same sort of high school

certification. Enrollment in GED oriented classes or an equivalent program

may be a prerequisite or adjunct to participation in other services. "We're

spinning our wheels if we place ttese kids in work experience situations

that lead no where" said one Area Manager in Portland. "It's clear that to

best serve youth we must channel resources into training and longer term

employability development. We empaasize individual responsibility in our

out-of-school program, and we focus heavily on .kib survival skills. The kids

understand that they may have to +rake same sacrifices to complete high school

certification -- we don't pay fo.- studying time. But we try to be flexible,

and many are able to go thrciigh the high sclool equivalency program or get

the GED in a short time once they make a serious committment."

Training potential and apnropitens-,z of occupational focus are key

considerations in the developmert of if.flvidual work experience or OJT

opportunities. However, youth counselcx9 and job developers agreed that

good supervision on the part of emplwIng agencies was probably the most

critical factor, in promoting effective work experience. Good supervision

usually means employer based staff with the time, capability and ecmmittment

to work closely with youth employees in both a managing and training role.

CETA staff in each prime sporiscr area acknowledged that the actual quality

of supervision varied corsideriely among worksites and was often difficult

to predict at the time (Ji p1 a' It was also noted that different

types of participants and differing program models carry different sets of

supervisory needs.

Most YLPIP positions are handled on an individual basis and the super-;

visory responsibilities of the employer are defined during the negotiation

of the OJT contract or the work experience placement. This arrangement

allows some flexibility for matching supervisory roles with participant

needs. In Kitsap County, the use of competency based learning plans has

tended to improve the quality of the supervision and to keep job duties

focused on training objectives. Job site supervisors in Kitsap complete

bi-weekly assessments of participants' progress in achieving defined

competencies and skills. All the CETA staff interviewed are involved in

job site monitoring and maintain close contact with supervisors at employing agencies. Monitoring schedules vary among prime sponsors, with

-4-

n3
visits generally being maLle at two to six week intervals In most cases,

staff indicated that they were available for more intensive assistance

at work sites where supervisory problems appeared to be prevalent.

YCCIP projects, which typically deal with work crews rather than

individual placements, pose a different set of supervisory problems.

Most projects are designed to employ 10 or more youth, and size alone

necessitates the hiring of additional staff specifically detailed to

project supervision within the operating agency. YCCIP projects tend to

be focused on tangible goals particularly in relationship to construction,

maintenance and installation activities. Consequently, there is a need

for supervisory staff with specific technical skills who also have the

ability to trei. and direct youth, who typically have few skills, little

education or weJzk experience and, often, considerable personal and family

problems as wel% The caMbination of craftsman, trainer, and sensitive

counselor is not easy to come by, and this situation is made even more

difficult by YCCIP funding limitations. One YIP operator who experienced

difficulty in finding two qualified supervisors was able to pay them adequately only by settling on a 30 hour weekly work schedule.

The solar heating project in Roseburg, Oregon operated by a sub-guarantee

of the Balance of State, is targeted on a "hard core" and economically disadvantaged group which includes high school dropouts and juvenile offenders.

Jim Chambers, who coordinates the project for Manpower Incorporated, a

private, non-profit corporation, feels that a mixlmum participant to supervisor ratio is 5 to 1 for crews installing solar heating devices. For the

training activity and construction work that takes place in the shop, the

ratio drops to about 3 to 1. To finance this level of supervision,-Manpower

Incorporated was able to access Title VI positions (fran the State CSA

allotment). The problem then became one of finding quality supervisors

who were income eligible. After some delay, several eligible people with

good technical skills and an interest in working with youth were hired.

These supervisors were given training in counseling techniques through

agency arranged enrollment in a continuing education class at the local

connunity college. The project is operating efficiently and several

participants have already left for unsubsidized jobs in the private sector.

The Roseburg project demonstrates that with considerable planning,

committment and "juggling," a YIP project can be geared to provide substantial training, quality supervision and individual counseling while

meeting the income needs of disadvantaged participants as well as concrete

community service goals. This example, however, may very well prove to be

the exception. In a number of other cases, YCCIP projects operate in

relative isolation from mainstream CETA service networks, and they are not

set up to provide participants with a fine link to educational opportunities,

developmental services or future job placements. A number of CETA staffs

echoed the opinion of one counselor: "We just don't have the flexibility

or range of options with the YCCIP projects that we do under YETP or Title I.

To me, it's just a one-shot deal. Sure, we can give a dropout a job, but

I'm not sure whether these kids are any better off when the project's over."

-5-

364
The majority of YETP participants seem to be receiving some kind of

education and/or training in addition to basic job experience. But the

way in which such activities are linked or coordinated varies considerably

among programs; the most notable division being that between in-school and

out-of-school components. In-school participants generally fit work experience around their high school class schedules. The number of hours

that high school participants work ranges from 10 to 40 per week. In some

areas, work schedules can be set up on an individually flexible basis depending on funding availability, counseling recommendations, and participant preferences and class schedules. In other areas, a limitation of 10

or 20 hours work experience per week is placed on all high school

participants. Program policies generally encourage in-school participants

to coordinate work experience with related academic work. In three areas,

participants are required to take at least one class in a related subject

area. However, the ability to enforce this requirement during the first

program quarter was somewhat curtailed by the fact that YETP programs

often goL off to a late start (i.e., after academic semesters, trimesters,

or quarters were already underway), as well as by the limited amount of

vocational course options in many school districts.

FOr the most part, educational curricula is not closely linked to

job experience. The exception would be in high schools. where YEW

participants are placed in ongoing cooperative education programs, in which

work experience opportunities are tied to specific occupational cluster

classes. This kind of involvement is occurring on a formal basis only in a

limited number of Portland high schools. However, other prime sponsors and

school districts are moving in this direction in less formal ways. A high

school student working in a Kitsap County hospital is being helped by his

teacher to learn the metric system so that he can gain the competency needed

to perfonn his job functions. In the Coos-Curry District of Oregon, BOIS,

the sub-grantee is working with the Intermediate Education District to

develop a model CE2 program in which participants will eventually work on

special projects structured to involve subject related skills in on-the-job

situations. Participants will also have an opportunity to learn first hand

about divisified occupations through short-term "shadowing" placements

in a number of jobs.

Nearly all high school students in YETP are receiving credit for work

experience. At the present time, one unit of general or elective credit

toward graduation is generally given for one semester or trimester worth

of work experience. Sane programs hope to be able to set mechanisms in

place next year which will allow students to petition for credit in academic

subject areas (i.e., Math, English, Economics) for skills and competencies

gain n the job. This type of arrangement will require more involvement

in rk experience on the part of teaching staff than is generally occurring

the present time, and this implies a stronger involvement in CETA and

,/acmnittment from school districts than is currently the case in most areas.

Documentation of competencies is a key factor in establishing credit

giving arrangements. The extent to which competencies gained on the job are

clearly documented at the current time varies among prime sponsors. In
Kitsap County, competency Lased learning plans provide a complete record of

work experience which also serves as documentation the high schools.

In Portland, the procedures for documenting campetenc differ by school and by type of work experience program. In Eugene, Ca 1, participants

document their experiences in self-written job descrii 1. The situation in out-of-school components is rath t :ferent. No outof-school participants in any-of the prime sponsor site ..ve receiving

academic credit for work experien6d. Sane high school dropouts return to

school when they enter the program and these participants may receive credit.

But it is quite clear that high schools do not give credit for job experience

to youth who are otherwise not enrolled in school, and it is unrealistic to

expect thav they would. The greater need for most out-of-school youth is

GED or equivalent certification along with job experience and occupational

training. For those who have completed high school or a GED, occupational

training is generally made available either in a classroom or job site setting.

The extent to which education and other classroom training is coupled

with job experience varies among sponsors. In Kitsap county, approximately

ode third of the out-of-school YETP participants in work experience are

simultaneously involved in same type of classroom training or education

program. In Portland and Lane County, dropouts are encouraged to get GED or

high school certification before becoming involved in occupational training and/

or short term work experience. In Coos-Curry District, all YELP participants

are enrolled either in local high schools or in GED or vocational classes at

the community college.

Participants vary widely in terms of their knowledge of the job market

and the extent to which they have considered realistic career options. At

the point of program entry, however, they generally have one thing in cannon:

they know they need money, and they tend to express this in terms of needing

a job. The counselors see their job as helping to turn the kids away from

an immediate employment focus' and on to career development. "Maybe'one kid a day has sane kind of realistic career goal. The rest need money. They're

looking for work and they're not too sure what kind," said a Lane County

counselor. "We have to tell than that we're not a crisis intervention

Program."

The need for same kind of self-assessment and better information on the

job market for career planning is especially critical for out-of-school kids.

Both Portland and Lane County staff stress the importance of involving youth

from the beginning in their own job research activities so that they can gain a clearer assessment of their relative position visa vi the job market and

begin to define sane realistic goals. The transmittal of career information

and job seeking skills is an important part of most out-of-school programs. The majority of participants also have a need for help in budgeting and other

life/time management skills. Some CETA staffs have organized small -lass

groups to work on survival and job seeking skills, but other staffs felt that

structured classroom activities were anethema to the typical dropout and that

job information and survival skills were best transmitted through individual

counseling techniques. Whether this effort is conducted in class groups or

on an individual basis, the key consideration seems to be structuring activities so that participants must assume an active role. Most participants do

-7-

3us
not make a personal connection with career development information unless

they are encouraged to relate it to specific actions.

One Portland participant remembered her involvement in a job survival

class (taught by the Area Manager) as the highlight of her CETA experience:

"Jeff was great; he'd never just lecture and let you sit back and blot it out.

When you came to class you knew you would be put on the spot. It was: 'What

did you find out about those kind of'jobs? How many employers or schools

did you contact this week? Who did you talk to? What are you going to do

about it?' It really got me going. It made me think about what I was doing

in the program and what I would do afterward."

Most of the youth interviewed had positive feelings about their job

experiences. Some were just glad to have a job, but others saw their work

as fitting into longer term career plans. One high school student working

in a clerical training position expressed her intention to "become a really

good secretary and be working in about five years for some kind of top

executive." "I'll save my money and then my boyfriend and I will eventually

start our own business," said another participant who was just starting an

unsubsidized job. About half of those interviewed hid participated in

SPEDY during a previous summer, and they all considered their current

program experience to be far superior. Nearly every participant interviewed

felt that he or she was making a positive contribution at the work site.

Several told me that they were completing GED's while working in YETP and YCCEP

jobs, and they planned to apply for BOG grants or work study upon CETA completion in order to take vocational classes at local community colleges.

One young woman, who had dropped out of high school five times, was able to

enroll in a high school equivalency program while doing secretarial work at

the CETA office. "What this experience means to me," she said, "is that I

know what I can do. I'll never wait tables or work as a motel maid again."

III. YOUTH PARTICIPATION

The experience of soliciting youth input through council participation has

had mixed results. Prospective candidates for youth councils were usually

identified through requests to local agencies (both CETA and non CETA) that

work directly with youth populations. In the selection of youth representatives,

there are two general strategies: the first is to select youths who appear

Co be typical, or most representative,of CETA participant groups, and the

second is to pick youths who have demonstrated qualities of leadership or

interest which tend to set them above the norm. If strong and active council

participation from the youth sector is the goal, then the second strategy

would appear to be the most effective. Staff people who work with councils

pointed out that the experience of mingling with public officials, business

and labor leaders, and others council members of stature in the community

tends to be intimidating for any youth. The strongest and most articulate

youth representatives have been able not only to survive this experience,

but also to enrich council proceedings with their own views and ideas. There

are uther cases, however, where the youth representatives never really made

a connection on the council. Lacking experience and orientation, confused by the

complexity of CETA titles and program issues, uncertain of what is expected

of them, and intimidated by more articulate adults, many youths, not surprisingly, have little to say at council meetings. Some become inactive

after attending one or two meetings.

-8-311"/
Kitsap Cbunty has OLe youth representative on the council and his record

of participation has been outstanding. This particular young man is unusual

perhaps in that he feels able to express his ideas in a forum of forceful

adults, and he is willing to commit his time and energy to a range of program

issues and advisory duties -- including the paper work associated proposal

review. He has never been in a CETA program, but he was a high school

dropout and has first hand experience with youth employment problems. "I

can't really represent all kids, I can only speak for myself," said the

17 year old council member. But I think my being on there has been a good

thing. I'd like to see the programs emphasize training more -- maybe get

more of a committment from employers to work with kids on a longer term basis.

Just getting a job isn't going to help much. Dropouts know they need training

and education. But you're not going to get than to go back to high school

either. There have to be alternatives -- sane way for kids to get experience

and training so that they can plan a future. If we want to know how to improve the programs, I think we should talk to the participants more. Find

out how it works or doesn't work for them."

There is same evidence, in fact, that one of the most useful kinds of

planning input for CETA programs is the information and reactions that

filter back into the system from participants. In Portland, tilt: youth

representatives appointed to the council are not currently active, but

counselors and area managers in the youth service centers,who have daily

Contact with participants, play an effective role in feeding participant

impressions and ideas back to program planners. No one questions the value

of tapping youth thinking and incorporating participant views in the decisionmaking process, but efforts to open communication channels and encourage

feedback from the operations level may well be more effective than a formal

council mechanism in accomplishing this goal.

The structuring of councils is an important facet in the potential impact

of input from the youth sector. Previous experience in Lane County demonstrated that, with the proper support, youth representatives can play an effective role in a small and dynamic "working committee" structure.

However, with the current County decision to fuse these committees into one

large advisory body, CETA staff fear that youth representation may lose much

of its potency. The further removed councils are from the program level,

the less impact youth representation is likely to have on actual operations. The

Governors Manpower Council, as the advisory board for Oregon, BOS, includes

youth representatives on a special sub-committee. However, most of the program decisions that will affect youth are made at the local district level.

Balance of State sub-grantees are under no requirement to include youth

in local program planning processes. Program planners and administrators

express an interest in structuring more effective channels for youth input,

but a continuous climate of other pressures may preclude much staff time

being spent on such efforts.

IV. TARGETING

With the data available at the prime sponsor level and from Region X ETA,

it is difficult to get an accurate break down of YCCIP and YETP participants

-9-

3 68
by the three economic cate6ovies desirable for this report. The region is

currently' radking only the number and percentages of participants who are

economically disadvantaged (this category corresponds roughly to that of

below 70 percent of the Lower Living Standard). However, enrollment data

clearly show that preference in selection is being given to economically

disadvantaged youth by the prime sponsor studied in Region X. (See Tables

3 and 4 in the Appendix.)

YETP enrollment particularly is focused on the economically disadvantaged.

In Kitsap County local policies limit program eligibility to the disadvantaged,

and 100 percent of YETP participants come from families with incomes below

70 percent of the Lower Living Standard or receiving AFDC. In Portland and

Lane County, economically disadvantaged participants accounted for 91 percent

and 86.1 percent of total enrollments respectively in the second quarter.

Oregon, HOS is the only sponsor studied that made use of the option to enroll

higher income youth in YETP. In conjunction with a knowledge development

experiment, 8.7 percent of Oregon, HOS second quarter enrollments came from

youth in families earning above 85 percent of the Lower Living Standard.

About 23 percent of Oregon YETP participants fit into the 70-85 percent

U.S category, and about 68 percent came from the economically disadvantaged

group.

YCCIP is also focused on the economically disadvantaged. Moreover, while

about half of YETP participants are attending high school, the majority

of those participating in YCCIP are high school dropouts. Counselors in

several of the prime sponsorships indicated that YCCIP services,what is

considered to be, a "high risk" population. In Portland, over 92 percent of

second quarter YCCIP participants were economically disadvantaged and nearly

77 percent were high school dropouts. About 86 percent of Oregon BOS YCCIP

participants cane from both the economically disadvantaged and high school

dropout populations. In Lane County, more use is being made of increased

flexibility in income criteria under YCCIP, the majority of second quarter

participants were high school drop outs, but less than half came from economically disadvantaged homes. Kitsap County is the only sponsor that

established YCCIP projects for high school youth and all of Kitsap's YCCIP

participants are both in-school and economically disadvantaged.

The prime sponsor:: set goals for providing services to special subgroups such a women, offenders, and handicapped youth. There are differences

in the extent to which these kinds of standards influence program selection

and service procedures. Lane County has a special program component for

offenders, and counselors utilize a numerical scoring procedure designed to

give priority in selection to ex-offenders, older youth, those who have no

outside support, and the handicapped. Other prime sponsors pay less formal

attention to the balancing of significant segments during the enrollment

process and just concentrate on selecting eligible youth who seem to need

help most and _ppear to be interested and motivated.

There are differences among the prime sponsors in regard to the incidence of enrollments from various sub-groups and these differences tend

-10-

33 3
to reflect locally defined priorities and service models. Referral

arrangements with agencies serving AFDC, offender, handicapped or other

youth populations have been established in most areas to funnel prospective

participants from priority sub-groups into CETA intake components. The

percentage of YETP participants from the AFDC population ranges from 14

percent (in Kitsap County) to nearly 34 percent (in Portland). As might be

expected, Lane County leads in the level of offendem. enrollments (24.4 percent),

while the other sponsors have YETP participant populations that include

between 8.8 and 17 percent ex-offenders. The percentage of participants

who are handicapped ranges from a low of 3.3 percent in Lane County to a

high of 8.8 percent in Kitsap County. These statistics are based on second

quarter enrollments that were much below full capacity. While the exact

composition of enrollments will undoubtedly change, it is clear that sub- populations of special need are being given consideration in prime sponsor

referral and selection procedures.

Determination of income eligibility for YCCIP and YETP -- like that of

other CETA programs -- rests primarily upon client provided information.

Apart from parent signatures or fol?.ow -up phone calls in sane localities,

operations staff depend upon the income awl work history data that youth are

required to include in their application to the program. It can be

difficult to get young people to track down information on the annual earnings of parents and step-parents, who often have a checkered pattern of employment/

unemployment. Tb further complicate matters, a substantial portion of the

participant population is highly mobile, moving in an out of the hones of

parents, step-parents, other relations, and ft:lends during a year's time. It is difficult to compile an accurate income record for the adults involved,

and it is difficult to determine whose income should be considered in gauging

youth eligibility. Counselor's admit that the chances for an error of same

sort are very high, but thorough verification procedures are undertaken only

on a spot check basis or in cases where frauthlant intentions are suspected. In the words of one counselor: "Eligibility verification is a giant headache.

It takes time and money. We're there to help, not to be policemen. They

wouldn't be here if they didn't need help. Besides even if they wanted to

lie, eligibility criteria is so complicated I doubt if they would figure out what to say."

Within the schools and in less populated communities, counselors are likely to be aware of the general economic position and family situations of prospective participants. The chances for fraud may be greater in urban areas

where there are larger numbers of more sophisticated, "agency wise" kids. In any case, counselor's point out that the program emphasis on training,

career development and self-help is not exactly geared to the needs of

middle class kids looking for easy ways to get extra spending money. All

the youth interviewed during this research effort appeared to be in genuine

economic need.

370
V. SUBSTITMON

YEITA was intended to increase the total resources available in prime

sponsor ereas for services to youth. YCCIP and YETP grants are to be used

as a supplement rather than a substitute for what prime sponsors would

otherwise spend on youth services. Data available from prime sponsors and

Region X ETA indicate that YCCIP and YETP have had a significant net impact

on increasing the level of services to youth in the areas studied. (This

data is presented in summary form in tables 5, 6 and 7 in the Appendix to

this report).

Data on the level of services provided to youth under Titles I, II and

VI show a mixed pattern of change between second quarter FY 1977 and that

of FY 1978. Thble'6 shams that the four prime sponscas,in keeping with DOL

requirements, held constant or increased the percentage of Title I enrollments accounted for by youth from March 1977 to March 1978. The percentage

of Title I enrollments who are youth varies between 32 percent (in Lane

County)and 61 percent (in Oregon, BOB). Although the percentage of youth

enrollments in each case increased or renained constant, the number of youth

enrolled in title I decreased overall. The decrease of youth enrolled under

Title I in Oregon, BC6 and Portland reflects a reduction in Title I activity

from FY 1977 to 1978 rather than a reduced emphasis on serving youth. There

is no evidence of a tendancy on the part of prime sponsors included in this

study to "stack" Title I components with youth during the first quarter of

FY 1978 for later transition to YETP or YCCIP. In fact, the data in table

6 suggests that Title I enrollments tended to be down during the first

quarter and that youth enrollments in Title I increased during the second

quarter at the same that YEPPA programs were being implemented.

The percentage enrollments of youth under Title II and VI started out

at much lower levels than Title I and have tended to decrease between FY

1979 and 1978. (See table 5). In FY 1977, the percentage of Title II

enrollments accounted for by youth varied from 8 percent (in Portland) to

13 percent (in Oregon, BC6). In every case, both the percentage and number

of Title II youth enrollees decreased significantly by the second quarter

of FY 1978. Title VI youth enrollment levels in FY 1977 varied from 8 percent (in Kitsap Cbunty) to 10 percent (in Oregon, BOS and Lane County).

However, unlike Title II, the numbers of youth enrolled in Title VI increased

significantly over a years time. By March 31, 1978, the number of youth

enrolled in Title VI jobs in the four sponsorships increased over 400 percent.

This "jump" is explained by increases in total Title VI enrollments in

each prime sponsor area. The percentage of Title VI enrollees who were

youth actually decreased in two areas. In any case, the number of youth

enrollments accounted for by Titles II and VI combined in the four prime sponsorships is much less than that accounted for by Title I.

YCCIP and YETP programs got off to a slow start, and, in every area

but Kitsap County, were operating at well under 50 percent of maximum planned

capacity at the end of the second quarter. During the second quarter of

1978, over five times as many youth were enrolled under Title I as were

enrolled in YETP and YCCIP combined. Current data suggest that even as the

two new programs approach full capacity levels, they will still enroll only

about half as many youth as will be enrolled under Title I programs. In

-12-

3'i
spite of the limitations for impact from YCCIP and YETP efforts under these

conditions, it appears that they are still having a net effect in increasing the level of CETA services provided to youth. The relative impact that

this effect will have in any given prime sponsor area will depend upon the

relative size of YCCIP and YETP grants in proportion to the amount of Title

I (and to a lesser extent, Titles II and VI) resources that are earmarked

for youth. At the present time, the total numbers of youth being served

under CETA (all titles) has increased significantly from second quarter

FY 1977 to FY 1978 in each of the four prime sponsor areas. The smallest

increase in total youth enrollments since the launching of YETP/YCCIP was

in Portland where youth enrollment increased by about 11 percent. The

largest increase was felt in Kitsap County (68 percent), where total program sizes are smaller and YETP and YCCIP were implemented quickly.

The continuing positive net enrollment effect of the youth grants

will, of course, depend on the extent to which prime sponsor maintain their

committment to serving youth under other titles. This is difficult to predict. Interview evidence suggests. that in urban areas there is likely to

be mare potential pressure to channel Title I resources into activities not

specifically focused on youth. A continuation of the federal requirement

to hold service levels constant would help to counter the tendency to pull

back on youth services under Title I. Prime sponsors are developing service

networks specifically focused on youth. These delivery mechanisms typically

handle Title I and YETP youth services as well as SPEPY and YOCIP referrals.

They are generally not linked closely with Title II and VI programs and

referral systems. There is some question whether the majority of Title II

and VI programs are really geared to meeting youth training and employment

needs. If circumstances remain the same, a reduction in the levels of

service to youth under the "Mr' titles is likely to continue into the

future.

In the opinion of this researcher it is not productive to look back

to "universe of need" estimates made in the planning period as a means for

establishing baseline expectations of the relative impact that CETA resources

can be expected to have on youth employment and training problems. There

are a number of reasons why this is so. First, there are maw-factors which

influence employment /unemployment rates among youth and youthful subpopulatious and many factors that influence the incidence of high-school

non-completion and youth wage levels beyond those associated with availability of employment and training related intervention service. To my knowledg?, no CETA sponsor has successfully measured a program's effectiveness in

terms of its impact on aggragate measures of income or employment among target

populations (as opposed to participant populations). Secondly to attempt such

an analysis would require at the minimum accurate and current measures of

unemployment, income, and training and employment needs among youthful populations

and sub-populations in each prhne sponsor area. Such information is simply not

available. In estimating the "universe of need" prime sponsors typically use

data that is three to five years old and is not specifically broken out to

correspond to prime sponsor geographic boundaries or youth sub-populations

appropriate for CETA planning purposes.
Tb even attempt a rough and dirty analysis of potential impact based

on universe of need estimates, it would be desirable to at least have consistant data, however sketchy, for each prime sponsor site. This condition

is not met by the variety of formats and measures used in the YETP/YCCIP

plans of the four sponsors included in this study group. With the data

currently available, it is not even possible to give approximate figures

for the numbers of youth who are unemployed.in each prime sponsor area.

It is possible to get a rough estimate of the number of youth from low

income families, but there is some question whether all these youth actually

constitute a prospective client group for YCCTP or YE'IP programs.

If it is desirable to make the obvious point -- that all (ETA resources

are a drop in the bucket in comparison with the magnitude of potential need

-- then there is data that can be used to support the case. In Kitsap

Cbunty, for example, an estimated 1563 youth (between 16 and 21 years) are

unemployed, an estimated 1,684 youth (14 to 21 years) are high school dropouts, and 1,902 youth are estimated to be in households where the income

is below the G poverty guidelines. Ctrrently, total CETA resources in

Kitsap County provide only about 190 youth enrollment "slots". It will be

possible to serve a total of about 95 youth under YETP and YCCIP in Kitsap

Cbunty.

If penetration of the universe of need is the sole criteria, then

obviously the potential impact of the YEPPA grants in Kitsap County is

miniscale. What bearing all this has on the substitution issue is far

from clear. Tbtal Title I, II and VI enrollment opportunities in Kitsap

amount to something under 600, and there are thousands of adults too who

are unemployed or living in poverty. Though the numbers are of a different magnitude in more populated areas, the basic situation is the same in

most prime sponsorships.

The Title I program mix has not changed dramatically since the

advent of YETP/YCCIP in the prime sponsor areas studied. (See table 8)

The general trend is toward increases in the proportion of enrollmeats in

classroom training and ITT and redhctions in work experience. There is

no evidence linking changes in the Title I program mix to the availal,j1-

ity of YCCIP and YETP grants.

The policy of attempting to curb substitution by restricting prime

sponsor changes in client or program mix unless they are formed in

response to changes in the universe is need is of questionable value. The

policy would seem to rest on the assumption that program/client mix was

formulated in the first palce primarily on the basis orscue kind of

uniform indicators of relative needs and economic conditions. Universe of

need estimates are not accurate, valid or reliable; but even if they were,

they would not automatically "tell" prime sponsors what program mix or

target group strategies would best serve their populations. Current program and client mixes still reflect the legacy of earlier categorical

manpower programs. These mixes change in response to prime sponsors perceptions of community interests, popular opinion, changing job markets,

economic outlook, demographic composition and changing patterns of need,

-14-

3'"."(.1
lossons learned from past program oxporience, availability of resources under various funding sources, delivery system capacities, and federal

policies and pressures, among other things. resigning an effective

program/client mix is a practical art at best and not a science. Since . there is no universally acceptable method at the present time for gauging

key economic and demographic variables and caning up with an optimal

program/client nix to match local condition, the Federal government would

probably do best to limit itself to the request that prime sponsors

provide a,rational and programmatically acceptable explanation for proposed

major changes'in program or client mix.

There are other more speciAc question related to the substitution

issue that could be explored -- albeit with some diffic-lty. Tb what

extent do current methods for tabulating enrollment by service component

result in over-counting? What is the effect (on the accuracy of performance measurers) of the prime sponsor practice of terminating participants

for transfer between CETA programs and titles and counting then each time

as Other Positive Terminations. (Theoretically a youth moving from Title I

training into a SPEW job for the summer and then in the fall to a YEIP

component could be counted twice as a positive termination before she had

even completed six months of program experience).

VI. OVERHEAD

The amount of resources provided by the private sector in conjunction

with CETA youth activities appears to be rather negligible. Most YETP

activities do not lend themselves to the donation of materials or.space

from private sector firms. CAP agencies or cther private non-profit organizatices do provide same-time, expertise and services free of charge for

special projects or program activities in Kitsap Cbunty and Portland.

Several YCCIP operators 'lave secured building materials or the occasional

use ot,yehicles free fran private firms. But operators don't generally

have the time to solicit donations from the'private sector, and they

usually find-it rare efficient-to purchase whatever is needed on a standard

discount. YCCIP projects involving weatherization, emergency home repair

and solar energy activities are supported in part through funds obtained

from the Ccamunity Services Administration, the Federal Energy Administration, and/or th3 Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Prime sponsors are making use of some services available at no cost

from public and conmunity based agencies. All sponsors use the testing

and assessment services provided free by the employment service. Relationships with other service provides are common and are discussed more

fully in section IX.

VII. INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE

The promotion of institutional change, at least in relationship to local

school districts, is probably the one area where YEP will have the greatest

impact. Pri,,e sponsors are using youth grant funds to develop linkages
with local schools. The forging of new cooperative relationships between

CETA sponsors and school district personnel is a complex and delicate undertaking which will rnquir time and care if it is to have a permanent and

positive impact. In many instances, CETA staffs are dealing with educators

who are skeptical of the potential value of such efforts. It may take a

year or two of modest program successes before these school districts will

be willing to commit substantial resources to joint ventures. In other

cases, YETP merely provides additional funds and focus for pursuing program directions that were deemed desirable by both CETA and school district

staffs.

LEA agreements have been signed in each prime sponsor area. The terms

of those agreements vary by prig e spoeeorship and in several cases, by

individual school district as well. Although there were sane delays, particularly in areas where no previous agreements or contracts existed, prime

sponsors generally were able to interpret the law and regulations flexibly

enough to fit local needs and conditions.

Timing was something of a problem, both ie rd to lead time for

adequate planning and in regard to synchroniziw ci..::rwm start up with the

beginning of the academ;,e noriod so that particjnx. could coordinate job

activities and class schee -%es. School district s mxpressed some fear

that timing will again be pelblem in the Fall wee sehools begin

their year in September but ,:.,,,esors won't have thei? C1.7 r pearts until

October. There will probably ..e.difficulty in reav in piecing together

funds to cover the SepteMberiGet-lr period. fveetions about carry-over

have not been resolved. One ,.--eictel district coodinator Aaid: "We don't

expect to know whether the pllrlm will be refunded unt.:2. Augu:it. Most our

staff is off during the summe?' se we may have a problem getting everything

on line for next year." A CETA staff worker, on the other hand, said:

"School districts move so slowly that our cycles will never be compatible.

We do the best we can, but it's about five times fester tc deal with the

Cbmmunity Cbllege."

In Kitsap Cbunty, the prime sponsor combined 29 percent of total YETP

resources with 211 of the YCC1P funds to create a viable base for a new

in-school program. The program is small and carefully planned to serve as

a positive model for further CETA/LEA relationships. In order to coordinate

services in six eehool districts, the sponsor signed a non-financial agreement with the Petineeila Vocational Skills Center. Sub - agreements were

signed with each school district. A local CAP agency, which is a major

provider of CETA services, serves as a funding channel Lied provides proeeam

support A coordinator, with a background in education, has been outstatione,- at the Skills center. She works wid. CETA staff at CAP and with

school district counselors to place eligible participants in appropriate

positiees, to deelop competency based learning places, to monitor the progress of individuals in job experience, and to provide counseling, career

information and other support. services. The new program was implemented

with surprizing speed and is aeplanded by ever:one iiv ived. Jobs are

training oriented, competencies arc being documented, eld participants will

receive credit toward graduation.
Kitsap echool district counselors are enthusias: About the program

and attribute its success to:the efforts of the prog,-11 coordinator. She

,undies all the mechanics that overtaxed counselors y -hably could not

menage, and, as a professional educator, she canmunieAes well with school

district staff. The schools are able to provide opportunities to disadvantaged students that would otherwise not be availibie. The program

is just a beginning phase in the relationship between CETA and education,

and stability is an important factor. Kitsap CETA staff think that it

will probably take two years for the program to develop an impact of any

permanent sort on school district roles ; id oommittment to manpower efforts.

Portland has a pre -YEPA history of cooperation between CETA youth

programs and the public scnools. Under financial agreements with the City,

the school district operates special projects such as Emergency Home Repair,

Medical Careers Ekplorat4m and Marine Occupations. These projects provide

training and experience for both ii.-school and out-of-school youth. Under

a pre-existing non-financial agreement, Portland public schools are also

involved in identifying and placing in-school CETA participants in jobs

developed and monitored by school district funded work experience coordinators in each high school. Students enrolled in work experience get credit

toward high-school graduation. Participants involved in special projects

also receive credit, and 4pp-outs are channeled back into school through

enrollment in project actiWeies.

Work experience in Portland's high schools fits into three categories:

(1) EXeloratory Work Experience, where participants learn about a number

of occupations through short term placements (shadowing) at no pay; (2)

Cooperative Work Experience, where j,43 experience is tied to identified

occupational cluster classes and based on skips, knowledge and time frames

identified in training agreements and plans; and (3) General Work Experience, where participants are placed, for p:.; and credit, in jobs not

tied to specific curriculum areas. The majority of CSTA's in-school participants are currently enrolled in general work experience, but the: trend

is toward an enriched career employment rndel. YE EPA regulations which

link work experience to training t, tivit, and broader career development

goals fit in very nicely with both school district and City intentions to

promote career development planning. A new non-financial agreement has

been drafted to support this direction, and 1 committee, wh:Lol: includes

representatives from high schools (teach-Ls, counselors, and work experience coordinators), City CETA youth cenrs Lad Northwest Regional Educetional Labs, haa been socking to deeftlop Lid test new career development

planning materiels.

Lane County allocated 22 percent ..)f its Y-TP funds among local school

districts interested in operating prog m"; frr in-school youth_ :re were a number of school districts who choso to participate so fund were

spread rather thinly. The YETP contracts with local school ustricts mark

a new direction in Lane County youth programming. Schools developed their

own proposals. Mostly they chose to operate rather straightforward work

experience programs using existing staff or splitting the cost of a .1w staff person hired specifically for CETA activ'.ty. One cur,: school

district chose to use its funds for the development of new ,;ccupational

-17-

3 7 6
classes and support for a diversified occupations program emphasizing

placement in the private sector. In-school participants in Lane county

will receive credit for work experience. LEA agreements do not provide

for services to out-of-school youth. High-school drop-outs and completers

are served by county-operated CETA centers.

Staff from the Manpower Planning Division (MPD), which administers

MA grants for Oregon BO S, report that it is easier to work with education

agencies at the present time than it was five years ago when CETA was

getting started and MPD was a "new (and not always diplomatic) kid on

the block". Non - financial LEA agreements in BC6 districts have been signed

for a number of months. There were initial delays in several districts,

and these were attributed to school board meeting cycles and some confusion

over appropriate school district roles. Approximately 29 percent of Balance

of State YETP funds have been obligated for activities linked to local LEA

agreements. In some areas, these agreements have served to formalize

pre-existing relationships between CETA sub-grantees and local school

districts. A number of districts formed new relationships with intermediate

education districth, which are agencies that coordinate vocational course

materials and other special programs and services among adjacent local school

districts.

In the Coos -Curry district, the CETA sub-grantee was not allocated

enough YETP dollars to effectively service schools in outlying areas. School

districts in the two-county area signed agreements that allowed all YE'IP

services to be provided under a single contract with the Cbos Cbunty

Intermediate Education District. The IED hired new staff to help develop

and implement a model CE" program. This program will eventually result in

a range of diversified career employment opportunities linked to occupational

curricula .1 the high-schools. At the present time, students are being

placed in individualized job experiences in the public or private sector.

Special emphasis is being placed on private sector jobs. Credit giving

structures are just beginning to be put into place. The program is designed

to serve high-school drop-outs and other non-students by returning them to

high school, or enrolling them in GED programs or other classes at the

community colleges while they, work part-time.

The Coos County IED planned to develop a special career awareness and

occupational exploration cemponent at the community college for YETP participants.

But they ran into some problems in applying for a grant from the State

Department of Education. In a letter to the community college Dean of

Student Service, a Department of Education official reported that the

recommendation of the Advisory Cbmmittee for the Career Awareness and

Occupational Exploration Program was to "hold the proposal in reserve".

As an explanation for the decision not to fund, the official offered the

following: "The committee's objection to your proposal was not so much on

the proposal itself as on the involvement of CETA in the project. They felt

this endangered the possibility of program success, ana greatly limited

its transportability". After a flurry of reacti-m from the CETA sub-grantee

and the IED, the official issued a new letter retracting the offensive

statement and affirming the department's and cemmittee.ls belief that "such

linkages to various segments of the community are vital to vocational

education in our state". Meanwhile the fate of the proposed project

remained unresolved, and CETA and IED staff are pretty sure that the first

letter more honestly reflected the Department of Education's views of CFA.

-18-

3 77
There are a number of resource centers providing occupational information

for youth in the prime sponsor areas studied. In-school youth generally have

access to career information centers within the high-schools that include a

key-sort system or computer termival hook-up to state occupational

information systems. Every high school in Portland has a least one career

development assistant (funded under CErA Title VI), who helps guidance

counselors and work experience coordinators to do occupational research

and job development. Prime sponsors often refer out-of-school youth to

community college career information cmters for job research and selfassessment activities. These services are augmented CETA supported training in job seeking skills(descalayd in seecion II).

CETA programs are riot tied into union activities in most areas. There

are generally no problems with unions, as CETA activities are not considered

to be a threat. The Emergency Home Repair Project run by Portland public

schools, maintains good linkage to union apprenticeship programs. Mbst

YCCIP projects in the construction area are considered to be "pre-apprenticeship" activities. But, while a percentage of YCCTP participants will be

able to secure entry level jobs with private contractors upon program

completion, union apprenticeship opportunities are generally reserved tor

hand picked "cream-of-the-crop" high school graduates and are beyond the

reach of most cerA participants. YELP placments in job experience at

federal installations, such as the Bremerton Ship Yards, sometimes provide

a feeder for channeling participants into union programs.

All of the prime sponsors studied have a strong interest in improving

linkages with the private sector. In addition to their use of private sector

representatives as advisors to youth involved in special projects and career

research, the City of Portland is considering the purchase of training for

CETA participants from large private firms. Such training would prepare

youth with skills relevant to private sector job requirements as well as

providing a basis for developing COT slots and securing permanent placements

in stable organizations. "There's no question that the private sector is

where it's at for youth. employment. The big companies are the hardest to

approach, but they offer the most potential for kids," I was told by a

Portland staff member. "We're looking at broader ways to deal with the

private sector. Our mayor is working with corporate executives to establish

backing for CETA youth initiatives."

School district staff in Lane County reported that they have better

success in securing OJT contracts and CETA placements with private sector

employers than do other programs 'ecause they represent a stable mainstream

publicinstitution. Placements in the private building trades are high

because Lane County is experiencips a construction bocci. The prime sponsor

has received good support from private employers for CETA- sponsored exoffender activities. Lane Cbunty is colUdering training only placements

in the private sector: "OJT contrr,kAs might not be the only way to go. Once

a company has successfully trained a youth, it will be more than likely to

pick him or her up on a permanent basis.
In Kitsap County, about 70 percent of total employment is accounted

for by jobs in the public sector - 'mainly with federally funded agencies.

Apart from a small number of OJT.placements, the county has not done much

with the private sector. "We're a small program," said a CETA staff member,

"And we're not set up to deal with national companies like Sears or Penneys.

The federal government should push for commitments from large firms at the

national level if it is really serious about developing linkages in the

private sector. With those kinds of commitments, it would be easy for us

to move in and set up program arrangements."

In Coos County, Oregon, about half of the YETP participants are working

on jobs in the private sector. The IED counselor has been active in "selling"

the OJT concept to employers through promotional efforts with civic organizations. In Roseburg, Oregon, the activities of the YCCIP solar heating

project have had the effect of stimulating similar ventures on a private

basis. Private contractors building the solar devices are providing a

natural placement hook-up for CETA participants who are ready to move into

unsubsidized employment.

VIII. Choosing Delivery Agents

Working out appropriate delivery roles for oammuffity based organizations

under the YEEPA grants was probably a less important factor in program planning

among the prime sponsors studied in Region X than it was in many other

localities throughout the county. In a number of areas there were no community

organizations with the manpower experience or capacities to handle major

YETP or YCCIP delivery roles. When private non-profit agencies were named

as major deliverers or program operators for YEEPA activities, it was

usually because their involvement in other phases of CETA delivery made

them a logical choice for handling the increased volume of youth services

made possible by YETP/YCCIP.

In Portland and Lane county, access to most CETA youth employment and

training services is coordinated through prime sponsor operated service

center networks. YCCIP and YETP activities - with the exception of those

being operated through school district contracts or agreements - were

structured to fit into these systems. CBD representatives participated in

the determination of youth priorities and the developmentof program plans,

but their delivery role is largely one of providing work sites, supervision

and related support services to CLTA participants under prime sponsor-run

systems. A number of private non-profit agencies perform well in this

capacity. But counselors in both localities say that there is no evidence

that CBOs are better able to meet the employment and training needs of

disadvantaged participants. "We give really careful scrutiny to placements

in private non-profit agencies" said one CETA counselor . "Community

organizations are usually pretty good in dealing with community improvement

projects, but that kind of orientation is not necessarily compatible with

our career development goals for youth participants. These agencies often

have limited capacities for providing supervision, training, or transition

opportunities. We do better placing youth in public agencies, or with

private employers in profit-making businesses".
Federal agencies were often considered by counselors to provide the

beat work sites for youth. The U.S. Forest Service, Social Security and

a variety of military installations were named among the most effective

employers. "These agencies are used to working with employment and training programs. They are able to provide supervision, and they handle the

paper work without complaints. And for kids who do well on the job, they

are very cooperative in arranging the training, test taking and other procedures that lead to permanent jobs." Program participants are often given

priority considerations for entry level job openings or training opportunities, and the federal service provides built in career ladders.

In Kitsap County, the CAP agency handles major delivery responsibility

for both youth and adult programs, so they were a logical contractor for

YEDPA activities. As the nucleus of a centralized CETA service delivery

network, the CAP staff has been able to work effectively with the employment service, the local community college, public and private employers,

social service agencies, the client population and more recently with local

school districts through a coordinating agreement with the Peninsula Vocational

Skills Center. In addition to new1M1Poperations, the CAP agency operates

a YCCIP project in conjunction with the Bremerton Housing Authority.

Coos-Curry District in Oregon is the only locality studied in which a

comumnity organization with a history of major CETA involvement was passed

over for delivery responsibilities under YETP. The sub-grantee chose instead

to contract with the Intermediate Education District in order to establish

a new career employment program for in-school youth. Manpower Incorporated,

which acts as a sub-grantee for District 6 in Oregon, BCE, is a non-profit

private corporation. Manpower Incorporated also operates programs including

the YCCIP Solar Heating Project. A CAP agency in District 7 operates a

YCCIP bicycle pathways project for the Balance of State sponsor.

IX. Coordinating Services For Youth

Prime sponsors have not created new and separate service offices for

handling YEDPA activities. New referral and delivery mechanisms have been

set up only where it has been deemed necessary to meet the needs of new

program models - as in cases where relationships with local education agencies

were launched to provide services to in-school youth under YETP agreements.

Intake, counseling, referral and other (ETA services are generally coordinated quite efficiently through pre-existing service centers.

Prime sponsors have a variety of informal agreements and working relationships with other agencies to provide for referral and exchange of services.

Agencies most frequently mentioned were: community colleges, state employment

service agencies, residential facilities for youth, alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs, welfare and children's service agencies, vocational

rehabilitation divisions, public health agencies, V.D. and family planning

clinics, food stamp offices, and legal service agencies. These relationships

generally date back to pre-YEDPA times and were established through informal

contact at the operations level. Only one program operator mentioned the

youth service inventory as a valuable source for identifying services that

-could be meshed with CETA, and this was someone in an agency new to CETA

involvement.

-21-

380
Prime sponsors maintain fairly close ties between various CETA funded

youth activities (Title I, SPEPY, YETP, and YCCIP). This is true at the

planning and administrative level as well as at the operations level where

inter-title transfers are common practice. Counselors generally try to

organize available resources in order to put together optimal service

packages for individual participants rather than to fill empty program "slots".

The extent to which YETP participants will be moved into SPEDY will

depend on the amount of funds that will be left in YETP allocations for use

during the summer months, as well as on prime sponsor perceptions of the

fundir4 outlook for FY 1979. Kitsap County, Lane County, and Portland expect

to have enough funds to carry the majority of YETP participants through the

summer. If shortfalls are encountered, prime sponsors will have to identify

which YETP participants are eligible for SPEPY and select youth from this

group for transfers. Most arEtts should have ample funds for summer YETP

activities because of slow start-ups during the second quarter. A more worrisome problem is the anticipated crunch in regard to the added pressures on

job developers, employing agencies, counselors and other service providers

that will be associated with dramatic increases in summer time enrollment

levels. Prime sponsors expect things to get a bit chaotic, but,they are

working on ways to improve the management of summer programs. ; X. FUTURE OPTIC NS

Since the advent of YEEPA, no prime sponsor studied has entirely revamped

its mechanism for providing services to youth, but there is no question that

the loss.of YEDPA grants would be a serious blow to youth service systems.

Planning and operations staff specializing in youth services would have to

: be cut back considerably, and in somelocalities the number of youth enrollments would be cut in half. New program models and initiatives would

likely be the hardest hit. YEIPA has provided many sponsors with an opportunity to forge cooperative program linkages with local school districts.

These relationships are still in the formative stage and will require a

period of some program stability if they are eventually to reap a full measure of needed institutional change. New initiatives for program development in the private sector might be thwarted through staff reductions. Prime

sponsors would not stop serving youth however. Current information indicates

that they would maintain youth councils and try to preserve what are seen as

valuable program initiatives on some kind of modified and reduced scale. But

clearly phase-out or substantial cut-backs, in the absence of other funding

alternatives, would be detrimental if long term improvements in the quality

and availability of youth services are the goals.
APPENDI CES

382
TABLE 1. ACTUAL vs. PLANNED ENBOLLIViENIS*

March 31, 1978

SMODR YCCIP Enrollments YETP Enrollments

Planned 9' Actual % of Plan Planned Actual % of Plan

Kitsap Co. 13 13 54 59 109.3%

Portland 80 25 31.3% 746 192 25.7%

Lane Co. 26 22 84.6% 327 141 43.1%

Oregon, BOB 80 21 26.3% 480 154 32.1%

* Data are from Region X ETA and may significantly under-represent actual numbers

enrolled as of March 31, 1978

TABLE 2. YETP PROGRAM MIX

Percentage of enrollments by service category, March 31, 1978

SPONSOR

Classroom

Training

OJT Career Deploy.

Experience

Work

Experience

Plan Actual Plan Actual Plan Actual Plan Actual

Kitsap Co. 7.4% 6.8% 9.3% 6.8% 31.5% 28.8% 51.9% 57.6%

Portland 64.5% 37.5% 5.8% 2.6% 23.5% 45.8% 6.3% 14.1%

Lane Co. 42.8% 34 % 4.6% .7% 31.8% 51.8% 20.8% 13.5%

Oregon, B08 25 % 19.5% 11 % 2.6% 52.5% 53.2% 11 % 24.7%

3 83
TABLE 3. YETP PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS

Percentage of enrollments by characteristic category, March 31, 1978

C[IARACTERIS KITSAP CO. PORTLAND LANE CO. OREGON, BOS

1. Economically Ms.*

(70% LLS or below) 91% 86.1% 67.9%

2. 70-85% lower

living standard* -0- 9% 13.9% 23.4%

3. Above 85% LIS* -0- -0- -0- 8.7%

4. High School Studen 35.1% 48.8% 50.6% 52.1%

5. High School Dropou 22.8% 27.7% 37.8% 34.3%

6. High School Grad

Not in school 36.8% 17.4% 10 % 12.1%

7. Offender 8.8% 16.9% 24.4% 12.1%

8. A.F.D.C. 14.0% 33.8% 28.9% 21.1%

9. Handicapped 8.8% 4.2% 3.3% 5.7%

* The breakdowns by income eligibility category are based on a combination

of DOL and prime sponsor provided data. At the regional level a record is

kept only of the number and percentage of participants who are economically

disadvantaged. For purposes of this table, economic disadvantagment is

considered to correspond with the 70 percent or below lower living standard

category. However this correlation is not in fact perfect and the automatic

iricliision of AFDC participants in this category :nay result in an under-repre- sertation of the number of participants falling in Category 2. (70-85% lower

li.1:-.1; standard). Only one sponsor, Oregon BOS, is enrolling youth in YETP

from families above 80 percent of the lower living standard, and this is being

done in conjunction with knowledge development activities.

384
TABLE 4. YCCIP PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS

Percentage of enrollments by characteristic, March 31, 1978

R

'ElSTI '`-lICHARACI -.......%

. KITSAP CO. PORTLAND LANE CO.

. , OREGON BOS

High School Dropout -0- 76.9% 59.1% 85.7%

(all in school)

Economically Dis. 100% 92.3% 40.9% 85.7%

Below 70% LLS 100% ---* ---* 81.0%

70-85% LLS -0,- ---* ---* 14.3%

85% LLS & above -0- ---* ---* 4.8%

4. * Enrollment data on Portland and Lane Co. are not available by these income

criteria classifications at the time of this report.

385
TABLE 5. SERVICE '10 YCXYIH UNDER TITLES II & VI *

Numbers and percent of enrollments who were youth, second quarter '77 & '78

..... TITLE II

...-. TITLE VI

SPONSOR FY 1977 FY 1978 FY 1977 FY 1978

# % # % # % # %

Kitsap Co. 25 11% 8 9.1% 14 8% 29 9%

Portland 36 8% 22 5.5% 24 9% 136 7%

Lane Co. 52 10% 24 7.4% 36 10% 75 5%

Oregon, BCS

a 131 13% 98 12.2% 105 10% 640 16% I

* Data from Region X, ETA

TABLE 6. SERVICE '10 YOUTH UNDER TITLE I

Numbers and percent of Title I enrollments who were youth

SPONSOR FY 1977

2nd Quarter

FY 1978

1st Quarter

FY 1978

2nd Quarter

Kitsap Co. (74) 36% (84) 45% (81) 44%

Portland (1138) 42% (808) 42.3% (1020) 42'1, Lane Co. (289) 29% (445) 32% (306) 32%

Oregon, BCS (2053) 59% (1397) 62% (1995) 61%

* Data from Region X, ETA and prime sponsors

386
TABLE 7. CETA SERVICES TO YOUTH, FY 1977 and FY 1978

Comparison of total youth enrollments in the second quarters of '77 & ""8

SPQNSOR FY 1977

Titles I, II & III

FY 1978

I,II,VI, YETP &YtCIP

% change

Kitsap Co. 113 190 +68%

Portland 1258 1395 +11%

Lane Co. 377 568 +51%

Oregon, BOB 2289 2908 +27%

4 * Totals compiled from IX)L and prime sponsor data. Enrollment figures

are approximate and have been computed for comparison purposes.

TABLE 8. TITLE I PROGRAM MIX, FY 1978

COmparison of percentage enrolled by Service Category, 1st quarter & 2nd quarter

CE:

. =MOM TRAINING

q OJT WE

SPONSOR 12/77 3/78 12/77 3/78 12/77 3/78

Kitsap Co. 54.1% N/A 9.4% N/A 36.5% N/A

Portland 28.3% 33.3% 8.3% 14.7% 63.4% 52.1%

Lane OD. 46.6% 48.4% 17.8% 17.7% 35.6% 33.9%

Oregon, BOS 26.1% 22.9% 17.8% 22.6% 56.1% 54.57

367
CASE STUDY

Implementation of Programs Under Subparts 2 and 3 of

Title II of the Youth Employment and Demonstration

Projects Act of 1977 by Five San Francisco Bay

Area (California) Prime Sponsors

by

John Walsh

Report 2 -- May, 1978

Prepared under contract for the National Counci

on Employment Policy, Washington, D.C.
FOREWORD

This is the second of four reports, to be submitted to the

National Council on Empllyment Policy, on planning, implementation

and operation of programs funded under Subparts 2 and 3 of Title

II of the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977

by five San Francisco Bay Area Prime Sponsors: (1) San Francisco

Mayor's Office of Employment and Training; (2) Oakland Department

of Manpower Development Programs; (3) Santa Clara Valley Manpower

Board; (4) Marin County Office of Employment and Training; and

(5) the Comprehensive Employment and Training Services Department

of Sonoma County.

Report Number I was concerned primarily with planning activities

under the Act; this report discusses in sequence the following

topics: (1) Amendments to Report Number 1; (2) Knowledge Development;

(3) Content and Quality of Work Experience; (4) Youth Participation;

(5) Targeting; (6) The Question of Substitution; (7) Overhead;

(8) Institutional Change; (9) Choosing Delivery Agents;

(10) Coordinating Services for Youth; and (11) Keeping Future

Options Open.

The material contained in the report is based on interviews

with prime sponsor staff, LEA officials, program operators (onsite), enrollees (at the work sites), and Youth Council members

(including Chairmen and Chairwomen and youth members). Prime

sponsor documents were also examined, and the services being
ii

provided by some program operators were observed on-site.

The opinions expressed in the report are those of the author

and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the National Council

on Employment Policy, The United States Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, or the five sample prime

sponsors.
I.

AMENDMENTS TO REPORT NUMBER 1

Report Number 1 was circulated to the five sample prime

sponsors for comment. The purpose was to make certain that the

report did not contain inaccuracies, misstatement of facts, or

misquotes. In addition, it was not possible to complete the field

work for Sonoma County in time to include its planning experience in

the first report. Pertinent comments regarding planning for YEDPA

in Sonoma County are described below. They are preceeded by

amendments to findings regarding planning in Marin and San Francisco

Counties that were contained in the first report.

Marin County

Mr. Dennis Brown, Director of the Marin County Office of

Employment and Training, took issue with two statements contained

in Report Number 1: (1) reference to his interpretation of the

term "CBO" as "peculiar; and (2) a statement to the effect that

Marin "did not give any special consideration to CBOs." Since I

believe Mr. Brown's comments are justified, pertinent sections

of his March 20, 1978 letter to me are quoted below:

While I find your report accurate in most respects, I

believe that two points are in error. First, on Page

32 you refer to my interpretation of the term "CBO" as

"peculiar." Please note that the definition of "CBO"

is referred to twice in the YEDPA federal regulations.

Section 97.602(c) indicates that " 'Neighborhood and

community based organizations' shall mean neighborhood

groups organized at the local level to operate employment

391
-2-

and training programs.... Such organizations can be public

or private, non-profit organizations or associations..."

Section 97.702 indicates that a " 'Community based organization (CBO)' shall mean an organization which is

representative of a community or of particular segments

of a community and which provides employment and training

services." Neither of these definitions in any way states

that CBO's are private, non-profit agencies. Therefore,

I do not believe that it is fair to label my interpretation

as peculiar.

In my view, the problem lies not in my peculiar interpretation

of the definition of CBO's but rather in the imprecise

manner in which these organizations are delineated in the

regulations. If the Department of Labor wished to restrict

the term CBO's to only include private, non-profit agencies,

they should have done so.

Second, also on Page 32 you indicate that because of our

Peculiar interpretation of the term CBO, Marin "did nct

give any special consideration to CBO's -- unless, as

Marin's Director contends, public agencies can be considered

CBO's." This statement is untrue. For example, of the

$88,571 in YCCIP funds, $62,627 (7170) were allocated to

private, non-profit agencies. Also, representatives of

private, non-profit agencies were appointed to our Youth

Council. Finally, all youth oriented private, non-profit

agencies were consulted in the development of the Youth

Plan.

3J2
-3-

To imply that because of my interpretation of the term

"CBO" that we did not give special consideration to private,

non-profit youth-serving agencies is a logical as well as

a factual error. I request that you either delete that

passage in subsequent drafts of your report or re-examine

Marin's youth planning process to confirm the accuracy of

my statements.

I realize that my points of disagreement are minor. As I

have stated previously, the report, at least in terms of

Marin, is accurate in all other respects. I believe that

with the requested corrections, the report will be completely

accurate.

Mr. Brown's comments are completely justified. I request,

therefore, that the deletions suggested be made in Report Number 1.

San Francisco

Ms. Eunice Elton, Director of the City and County of San

Francisco Mayor's Office of Employment and Training points out

that the table contained on Page 11, which summarizes San

Francisco's pre-YEDPA youth services, does not include the 8,700

youth who participated in SPEDY Title I summer programs (in fiscal

year 1977). Not all were in work experience, "for we have been

experimenting with classroom training -- vocational and remedial,

and to some extent also with OJT, in our summer programming."

Ms. Elton also points out that the report was in error

regarding youth participation on the San Francisco Youth Council.

The report stated that eleven of the Council's 40 members are

youth recommended by CBOs. Ms. Elton writes: "Eleven of the

393
-4-

27 Youth Planning Committee members are youth from 11 areas

recommended by the CB0s; six other youths were appointed by the

Mayor, so that there were some 17 youths of the 27 persons."

Other comments by Ms. Elton regarding youth participation are

contained in Section IV.

Planning in Sonoma

Although planning in Sonoma County was not included in Report

Number 1, the report was reviewed by the CETA Director, the

agency's Director of Youth Programs, and CETA youth staff. All

agreed that with only minor revisions, the report's general

comments on the planning process were as applicable to Sonoma as they were to the four other prime sponsor areas. However, there

were three aspects of planning in Sonoma County which are worthy

of special comment.

LEA Agreement

Sonoma was the only prime sponsor (of the five sample

primes) that was able to complete its LEA agreement on schedule.

This was a particularly noteworthy accomplishment because there

is very little history cf school-CETA cooperation in Sonoma County

and, as will be pointed out in other sections of this report,

official school attitudes toward both out-of-school youth and CETA

have always been somewhat hostile. CETA staff are hopeful that

the CETA-LEA agreement will be instrumental in improving cooperation

between CETA and the County's schools, and in effecting institutional change. Sonoma's success in dealing with the schools is

due chiefly to the employment of a fully accredited educator who

was responsible for school-CETA negotiations. Because of her

304
-57

knowledge of educator concerns and state and local laws pertaining

to education in California and in the County, she was able to win

the confidence of educators and assuage their fears regarding

participation in CETA-type programs.

Knowledge Development

Likewise, Sonoma was the only one of the five sample primes

to assign responaibilities for "knowledge development" to a single

staff person, and to fund a project which is purely research in

nature. Whether the assignment of a staff person to knowledge

development activities will result in a more systematic approach

to the research aspects of YEDPA is questionable (the position

has other duties besides knowledge development and the staff

person originally assigned to the position has since resigned),

primarily because the concept of knowledge development is both

vague and of secondary priority to Sonoma staff (as it is to the

staffs of the four other prime sponsors as well).

Youth Participation

Three of Sonoma's seven Youth Council mernb:-.. are young

men and women, and according to CETA staff, they have been "very

active" in Council deliberations. Their attendance records have

been excellent and, according to staff, they have been successful

in "bringing the Council down to earth," and of de-romanticizing

the concept of youth. "They know what's going on," one staff

member stated, "and they represent the attitudes and aspirations

of youth realistically." The experience of the four other

sample prime sponsors has been the opposite -- youth participation

has been very difficult to achieve, and has been considered

395
of very little value.

-6-

II.

KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT

One of the major problems prime sponsors have with the

knowledge development mandate of YEDPA is the apparent assumption

that "knowledge development" is new. For example, San FranciscO's

CETA Director writes: "One of the factor's influencing San

Francisco's turn to centralized youth services is the fact that we

had those services from about 1935 to about 1970, with a separate

youth office of the public employment service. Both the employment people and the school people remember that, and want to

reconstruct what was good about it." In other words, the knowledge

obtained from previous programs influenced the initiation of a

YEDPA YETP program. Thus, at the same time prime sponsors are

applying knowledge obtained from past programs, they are urged to

institute new knowledge development activities. The question

arises as to whether prime sponsors should apply the lessons they

have learned from past programs, or institute completely new

programs -- programs which have never been tested before -- in

order merely to "learn."

This, coupled with the implied research aspects of knowledge

development, causes staff confusion. "Knowledge development,"

writes San Francisco's CETA Director, "isn't really all that new.

From 1962-64 there was an experimental Youth Opportunities Center

at Hunter's Point, bringing together some ten agencies in a

concerted attack on the training and employment problems of youths

in three census tracts; it was funded by DOL and the Ford

301;
-7-

Foundation, and was a knowledge development pilot effort. We

learned a lot from it (including the disadvantages of tying an

action program to a research project, since the latter keeps

getting in the way)." Oakland's Youth Director has conducted

knowledge development pilot project for yLuch before being employed

by CETA, and the Director of the Marin County program is an

experienced research analyst. All of these experienced officials

seriously question the advisability of using politically vulnerable

CETA prime sponsors as research agents.

These factors may account for the less than enthusiastic

reception of the knowledge development mandate by Bay Area prime

sponsors. Answers to questions concerning knowledge development

appear to be "after the fact considerations;" that is, programs

are funded first, knowledge development activities are considered

second. As was mentioned in Report Number 1, prime sponsor RFPs

did not ask potential program operators to address themselves to

"knowledge development, nor were knowledge development criteria

used by staff and advis,,ry councils in evaluating responses to

RFPs. Thus, staff answers to questions concerning knowledge

development appeared to be attempts ro "tell the Feds what they

want to hear." The more experienced administrators -- those who

are well acquainted with the jargon of employment and training

programs -- were the most successful at this, although one of the

most experienced administrators used the knowledge development

issue to state quite bluntly that CETA prime sponsors should be thl

users rather than the developers of knowledge regarding youth

employment problems and their solutions.

3D7
-8-

It should not be implied that because of the foregoing

comments no new knowledge will emerge as the result of YETP and

YCCIP program operations. There can be no doubt that prime

sponsors are aware of the knowledge development aspects of YEDPA,

and will do their best to document program successes and failures.

These efforts, however, will not be substantially different from

the usual monitoring of programs that is routinely performed by

CETA staff. The YEDPA knowledge development mandate may result

in more intense monitoring of YETP and YCCIP programs, and the

various issues described below may be explored, but on the whole,

the process will be similar to that used in evaluating all CETA

programs.

Knowledge Development Activities

The following list incorporates the comments of all five

prime sponsors on potential knowledge development activities.

It should be kept in mind that the vast majority of the activities

listed were identified by the two largest prime sponsors, whose

staffs are the most experienced in the administration of employment

and training programs.

--Nature of the unemployed youth labor force, including

the ages and specific problems of youth who apply at

CETA offices, and/or are recruited by program operators

- -The extent to which change occurs in the schools, and

the extent to which any such change can be attributed to

LEA-CETA cooperation

- -Before and after testing to determine the effectiveness

of remedial education

- -The relative effectiveness of classroom and OJT training
-9.-

to youths of various ages and characteristics

--Demonstrate whether or not youth who complete enriched

OJT and work experience programs receive higher wages

than they have ever received before, or (if possible) in

comparison to a control group

--Determine what types of services are the most cost

effective

--Determine to the extent possible the pre- and postprogram employability of youthful clients

--Determine the extent to which contractors can be induced

to hire 16 and 17-year old youth, with or without CETA

subsidies

--Determine the extent to which youth can be employed in

serving the needs of the elderly

--Evaluate the effectiveness of the "outdoor classroom"

--Evaluate the effectiveness of vocational exploration as

a component for in-school youth

One prime sponsor emphasized that a comprehensive knowledge

development program could only be accomplished if the agency were

authorized to hire a researcher at approximately $30,000 a year.

The problem would be coordinating central office and program

operator data in a thoroughly professional manner, and in identifying

control groups. An 'additional prime sponsor is considering the

employment of an outside contractor to analyze data on YETP and

YCCIP programs. For the most part, however, if the above activities

are carried out, they will be accomplished by means of the usual

monitoring activities.

399
-10-

Disadvantaged/Non-Disadvantaged Option

Only two of the five Bay Area prime sponsors opted to apply

for a program under the 10 percent optional YETP set aside for

mixed disadvantaged/non-disadvantaged groups. Santa Clara, which

prepared its proposal before DOL guidelines were issued, withdrew

its entry after the guidelines were received. Marin County's

proposal has not as yet received Regional Office approval. San

Francisco and Sonoma staff indicated that it would have been

impossible to obtain Youth Council and Athisory Council approvals

for such a project. According to staff, the Councils were not

about to fund projeL.ts which enrolled the non-disadvantaged, and

were skeptical of the assumption underlying the 10 percent optional

set aside, that iL, that disadvantaged youth would benefit more

from programs in which the no-disadvantaged were enrolled.

Although Oakland did not apply directly for a program under

the optional 10 percent set aside, it increased the school's

percentage of YETP funds from 22 to 32 percent with the proviso

that such a program he conducted. According to CETA staff, the

LEA requested the extra funds, but according to the LEA coordinator,

it was the City of Oakland that wanted to experiment with mixed

income groups. At any rate, the program involves work experience

for in-school students; the work experience positions are with

the City of Oakland. Prime sponsor staff indicated that the

10 percent option was too small to be of any value, either to

enrollees or with respect to knowledge development activities.

Pure Research Programs `NO

One of the programs funded in Sonoma County under YETP can

be considered of a "pure research nature." Entitled the
Job Conversion Program, its purpose is to eliminate the

isolation of youth from the mainstream of the country's economy,

i.e., the private sector, by testing the feasibility of converting

present overtime work hours into new entry level jobs for youth.

The program will first analyze five local businesses to determine

the portion of work consumed by overtime hours, and the cost to

these businesses of converting these hours into entry level jobs.

The program will then offer to cover the cost of conversion in

exchange for committments to hire youths in the new positions.

Project staff will also work with persons whose overtime income

is displaced, and attempt to enroll these individuals as trainers

of the incoming youth.

The project hinges on the acceptance by key local business

and financial leaders of the concept that it is in the best

interest of the community and business in general to re-enfranchise

youth, i.e., eliminate their isolation from participation in the

adult culture. Also crucial to the project will be acceptance

by parents that it is in their interest to reduce the portion

of family income contributed by parents, while increasing the

portion contributed by adolescents; or, in other words, that they

must actively make room for youth in the economy. Both of these

elements will be dealt with during the first phase of the program.

In the event either goal is not significantly achieved, the

program operator will return the balance of the grant funds to

CETA. A total of $19,000 is allocated for the project, and it is

expected to serve 20 in-school and 30 out-of-school youth.
-12-

CONTENT AND QUALITY OF WORK EXPERIENCE

Although the content and quality of the work experience

funded under YETP and YCCIP varies from prime sponsor to prime

sponsor, it can be stated without reservation that the work

experience available from all five prime sponsors under YEDPA is

well above average. All five prime sponsors have established

comprehensive criteria for the conduct of work experience programs,

and program operators appear to be meeting these criteria. The

criteria involve supervision, related training, the. content of

work experience jobs, and in some cases, linkages to educational

curricula, including academic credit. These observations are

based not only on responses to questions regarding work experience

by prime sponsors, but also on visits to 11 work experience sites,

observation of the work being performed, and interviews with

both supervisors and enrollees.

To date, a total of six. YCCIP projects and five YETP work

experience projects have been observed on-site (other non-work

experience YETP programs have also been observed). The project

descriptions contained below provide some idea of the quality of

work experience being funded under YEDPA.

YCCIP

San Antonio Health Clinic (Oakland)

Twelve in-school and out-of-school youth are employed in

remodeling a 5,000 square foot building to be used as a new clinic.

The project, which started in January, employs three on-site

supervisors, or a ratio of one supervisor to four enrollees. It

402
-13-

is expected that work on the building will be completed in September,

at which time the enrollees will be assigned to similar jobs

throughout the community, or on an "outreach project." Enrollees

are paid $2.75 per hour to start, but wages increase to a maximum

of $3.75 per hour during the course of the project. The jobs

performed by the youth (six boys and six girls) include carpentry,

painting,' removing of walls, construction of partition walls,

replacement of windows, and assistance to plumbers and electricians.

Five of the participants have completed high school and one

is in a GED program. Five are enrolled in continuation school,

and one is not'enrolled in school at the present time. All of the

enrollees, including those with high school diplomas, lack basic

education skills. For example, most cannot use a tape measure

because they lack knowledge of fractions.

The enrollees work in the afternoon. The high school graduates

at.end classes at the community college in the mornings, as do

th, 1:1 who are enrolled in continuation school. Participants do

receive academic credit for their work experience.

Four of the participants have expressed an interest in

continuing in carpentry. The next step for these enrollees would

be enrollment in the community college's carpentry course, which

is considered excellent. Absenteeism is the biggest problem.

There has been one negative termination for excess absenteeism.

Only four youth show up 100 percent, of the time. The remainder

have a 40 percent absentee rate. On a regular job, such youth

would be fired. However, project staff work with these participants in an attempt to improve their attendance rates.

4U3
-14-

WORC (Windsor, Sonoma YMCA)

This project for 14 high school dropouts, ages 18-19, takes

place in an unincorporated village of Sonoma County. The goal

of the project is to provide 50 percent of the youth with unsubsidized jobs by the end of September, 1978. The project's target

groups are minorities, youth from low-income families, and youth

in trouble with the law. The acronym "WORC" stands for the

Windsor Environmental Restoration Corps, and the work performed by

participants includes weeding, refurbishing a school sports field,

elimination of fire hazards, and cleaning ditches. All are manual

labor type jobs. Two supervisors, or a ratio of seven participants

to one supervisor, are employed. Participants work seven hours

a day for four days a week. On Mondays, they attend classes for

four hours at Santa Rosa Junior College. Class instruction is in

agriculture and maintenance related work. Enrollees receive

three units of work experience and five units of academic credit

from Santa Rosa Junior College. Their wages are $2.b5 per hour.

Problem: Sixty percent of the original enrollees have

already been placed in unsubsidized employment. As a result,

additional youth have been referred into the program. However,

in order to receive credit from the Junior College, enrollees

must be registered. Only those who started the program had the

opportunity to register (since school registration occurs only in

September and February). Thus, recently referred enrollees lose

out on academic credit. Nevertheless, they do attend classes

(participants are not paid unless they attend classes).

404
-15-

Kairos Community Center (Sonoma)

This is a project for eleven youth enrolled in the county's

Regional Opportunity Program (ROP), which is administered by the

Sonoma County LEA. The project sponsor, Kairos Community Center,

is a community based organization. The project actually constitutes

a seven month course in occupations which are in high demand in

Sonoma County: Landscaping, Gardening and Horticulture. Enrollees

attend classes at the ROP between 8:00 and 10:00 in the mornings,

and work up to 32 hours a week in the afternoons. Two supervisors

are assigned to the eleven participants. Enrollees are paid

$2.65 an hour -- even while in class. Work sites are provided by

the cities of Cotati and Rohnert Park, and among the jobs performed

by participants are the care of community gardens, tree pruning,

the installation of sprinkler systems, landscaping, setting flower

beds, and maintenance. After seven months, participants will have

obtained sufficient skills to work with a landscape gardner and

will receive certificates of completion. Participants also receive

academic credit for the work they perform.

All of the enrollees interviewed stated that they intended

to continue with landscaping as a career, even though most had not

considered such a career prior to being enrolled in the program.

All also indicated that they could obtain part-time jobs that

paid more than the YCCIP jobs, but that they wanted the training.

The Kairos enrollees were the most vocal of any group interviewed.

Obviously, they were very proud of the program and their accomplishments. Both young men and women were enrolled, and the twoperson supervisory team was also male-female.

405
-16-

South County Alternatives (Santa Clara)

This is a program for 18 youths who reside in a rural poverty

area of Santa Clara County. Six of the enrollees are assigned to

the city of Gilroy Parks and Recreation Department as landscape

and construction trainees; eight work as mural artist trainees

under the supervision of the Tortuga Patrol, a professional mural

artists group; and four "ecology workers" are assigned to various

conservation, rennovation, and clean-up tasks under the supervision

of a community worker, The latter assignments include painting,

repair, and rennovation work at the Luchese Migrant Housing Center,

participating with. the Community Services Cooperative in organizing

community recycling efforts, tree planting for the Parks and

Recreation Department and other such projects. Participants are

paid $3.00 an hour which is a good wage in Gilroy. The ratio of

supervisors to participants ranges between 1-4 and 1-6. The most

popular components are the landscape and construction and mural

artist groups; the ecology worker component has had severe

difficulties in retaining enrollees -- perhaps because the actu.1

jobs do not measure up to the title "ecology worker."

Four of the enrollees are regular students; three are

attending continuation school; and nine are dropouts. Youth

enrolled in school receive 10 credits per semester for the work

they perform. No academic credit is provided to dropouts,

primarily because the schools refused to provide academic credit

for out-of school youth. Dropouts are urged to return to school,

but the schools do not appear anxious to reenroll them, and there

is a waiting list for the continuation school. Dropouts are also

406
-17-

advised that they can receive academic credit if they enroll in

adult night school. :Three of the participants have accepted this

advise.

Participants work at the same jobs as regular city workers,

but many of these workers are participants enrolled in other CETA

programs. The City of Gilroy employs more CETA workers than

regular workers. City officials have been criticized for this and,

as result, were reluctant to participant in YEDPA programs.

Youth Chance (YMCA, San Francisco)

The target group for the Youth Chance program is 16-19 yearolds who are out of school and unemployed. The largest of the

YCCIP programs funded in the Bay Area, an anticipated 120 enrollees

will participate in the project, and nine supervisors will be

employed. The program consists of two phases: (1) During the

first two weeks, participants are trained in residential setting;

(2) participants are placed on part-time jobs (20 hours a week).

To participate in the program applicants must agree to reenroli

in school.

During Phase 1, enrollees are exposed to painting, carpentry

and landscaping. The painting and carpentry instruction is given

by union journeymen. Instruction is also given in "work attitudes."

While in residence, participants receive wages, meals and housing

in addition to training. Enrollees are fed into the program at

the rate of 25 every three weeks. Wages begin at $2.65 an hour.

Every three months, participant performance is evaluated. If

progress is judged satisfactory, the wage rate increases at the

rate of 10 cents an hour up to a maximum of $2.95.

407
-18-

The program is supported by two local philanthropic organizations -- the Zellerback and San Francisco foundations. They will

give $20,000 to the Apprenticeship Opportunities Foundation (AOP)

to develop apprenticeship opportunities for some of the enrollees.

The program is also supported by the local unions. Twentyfour

of the participants will be selected by the Carpenter's and

Painter's Unions to work exclusively in those

Francisco Central Labor Council supported the

trades. The San

project, opened up

contacts with the AOP, and identified journeymen who would serve

as instructors and supervisors. The Council, with the aid of

pertinent unions, also review and approve the job sites.

School/Community Activity Center (Santa Clara)

This is an alternative school program for 16 high school

students. The project includes the following tasks to be

completed by August 20, 1978: (1) installation of a timed sprinkler

system; (2) landscaping of the front, west and north sides of the

school building; (3) construction of basketball and volley ball

courts and a horseshoe pit; (4) construction of a permanent storage

shed; (5) expansion of an auto shop's outdoor instructional area;

(6) construction of an amphitheatre that will seat 80-100 spectators

(7) construction of a gazebo; and (8) construction of an

agricultural science area. On Mondays through Thursdays,

attend classes between 8:30 and 11:30 in the morning, and

between 1:00 and 3:15 in the afternoon. On Fridays, they

enrollees

work

work all

day. The starting wage rate is $2.65 per hour, but at the time of

the site-visit, most were earning over $3.00 per huur. Participants receive 10 academic credits per semester for the work they

are performing. 403
-19-

Only one supervisor is assigned to the 16 enrollees, but

it seems to be more than adequate. The students are enthusiastic

about the program; there have been no dropouts, and the atmosphere

on the job -- although businesslike -- is one of enjoyment. The

work is hard, but the students seem to be taking a great deal of

pride in their very visable accomplishments. The skills they are

learning will be of value to them throughout all of their lives -- either on the job or in the home.

YETP

Among the YETP programs is a full fledged apprenticeship

program for 15 San Francisco youth, a work experience program for

severely aisedvantaged youth (average reeling level: 4th grade)

in Oakland, a L.:efts skill training program (including the building

of looms) in Sonoma, a :21assroom training/work experience program

for 1.!gh school dropouts in Sonoma, and a GED/work experience

program for high school dropouts in Santa Clara. As might be

expected, the performance records of these programs vary from site

to site (primarily because of the differences in the enrollees

served), but all appear to be well supervised, and in all but one

case (the Oakland program), students either receive academic

credit for the work they perform or receive GED training.

The San Francisco Painter's Union Apprenticeship program

was suggested by the Business Representative of the San Francisco

local. He and his coordinator approached the San Francisco

CETA Director six months prior to the onset of YEDPA. Working

with the Joint Apprenticeship Committee, a YETP proposal was

pt:pared and eventually approved. The target group for the program
-20-

is the disadvantaged. Participants are recruited from two of

San Francisco's poverty areas -- the Mission District (primarily

Latino) and Hunters Point (primarily black). Participants start

at the regular apprenticeship wage of $6.09 per hour. CETt funds

50 percent of this wage; employers pay the remainder. Enrollees

attend regular apprenticeship classes at John O'Connell High

School and receive academic credit for their classroom work.

The Business Representative stressed that this was a fullfledged apprenticeship program -- not "window dressing" such as

"pre- apprenticeship," or other pseudo union-government programs

After the CETA subsidy is removed, participants will continue

as apprentices, and at the end of three years, will be earning

the full journeyman wage of $10.95 per hour.

Summary

Bay Area work experience programs funded under YEDPA are

well above average and some are outstanding. Prime sponsor

insistence on low supervisor/enrollee ratios, training on-thejob, and wherever possible, the coupling of classroom training

with work experience (and the provision of academic credit for

work performed) -- has paid off.

IV.

YOUTH PARTICIPATION

Youth participation continues to be a problem (although not

a problem CETA staff lose any sleep over) in the Bay Area. With

the exception of Sonoma, where youth were recruited for participation

410
-21-

on the Youth Council directly by CETA, youth participation has

not been a success. The San Francisco CETA Director reports that

between October 1977 and February 1978, it was impossible to

obtain a quorum of members of the Youth Advisory Committee -- primarily because of abQenteeism by youth members. Seventeen

of the 23 members of the San Francisco Council are youth,

representing various areas of the city. Of these, only about four

attend meetings regularly.

At the time of the Round 2 site visits in Oakland, there

were no youth members on the Council. In Oakland, youth members

must be CETA participants. The previous members had terminated

from various CETA programs, and new members were being recruited.

The Youth Council Chairwoman would like to see a change in this

rule. The constant changing of youth members vitiates the

effectiveness of youth participation. She would like to see

CETA eligible youth -- but non-participants -- appointed to the

Council. The same problems apply to Santa Clara County.

In Marin, it appears that educators dominate Council

proceedings. Marin's Director believes that youth participation

on councils results in only token involvement at best. He believes

that if individuals who are part of a problem (i.e., youths) are

going to be used to help solve the problem, the councils should

be made up entirely of youths. There may be something to this

suggestion. Santa Clara staff mentioned that more fruitful youth

participation had been obtained through the Santa Clara Youth

Commission, which is made up entirely of youth.

411
-22-

Sonoma has been more successful than the other four prime

sponsors in achieving active youth participation on the Youth

Council. One possible reason is that the youth were recruited

directly by the CETA youth staff. The attempt was made to select

young people who are truly interested in committee-type activities.

The youth were given a thorough briefing by CETA staff, and were

provided with pertinent materials.

On the whole, however, youth participation appears to be a

token affair. It is not a high priority item with most CETAs,

nor does it appear that it should be. Other responsibilities,

such as the content and quality of programs, as well as their

monitoring, take precedence over youth participation. Yet, if

youth are to contribute substantially to YEDPA, it would be

necessary to articulate the goals of youth participation more

precisely, select more carefully youth participants, and provide

in-depth training for the young men and women selected -- before

they assume their Council duties. Most prime sponsor staffs

have neither the time nor the inclination to exert such efforts,

primarily because the potential return is completely unpredictable.

V.

TARGETING

Visits to a total of 17 YETP and YCCIP projects, and interviews

with five LEA coordinators, revealed beyond a shadow of a doubt

that YEDPA programs are targeted for the most disadvantaged youth

in the five prime sponsor areas. The degree of disadvantageness

varies from area to area, with the most disadvantaged being

served in San Francisco and Oakland, an.: the least disadvantaged

412
-23-

in Marin County. Neertheless, even in Marin County and parts of

Santa Clara County, which have fewer disadvantaged youths than

the other three sample areas, the attempt is made -- and made

successfully -- to identify and recruit the alost disadvantaged

youths. All five prime sponsors require income and other

pertinent information on application forms, and attempt to verify

the information supplied by applicants. All five give priority to

youth meeting the 70 percent BLS lower living standard criterion,

although Marin County and parts of Santa Clara are hard pressed

to fill all slots with enrollees who meet this and other higher

criteria.

Verification procedures include checks with parents, school

records, and records on file with other agencies (including the

Employment Development Depa:tment and Welfare agencies). In

three prime sponsor areas, verification of application forms is

performed by the Employment Development Department (Employment

Service).

The largest overall sub-group to which programs are directed

are out of school dropouts and in-school students, including

those enrolled in continuation schools, who are having academic

and other difficulties. In Santa Clara, San Francisco, Oakland

and Sonoma, programs have been targeted for severely educationally

retarded youths, the handicapped, and youths who are, or have been,

in trouble with the law.

It is difficult to say whether CBOs are more effective than

other organizations in targeting services for economically

disadvantaged youths. The question arises: "What other organizations

413
-24-

the schools, the Employment Service?" The fact is that CBOs

and the schools are the two major deliverers of services under

YEDPA, and that both are serving severely disadvantaged youth.

C80 services are targeted more toward out-of-school youths

(although some deal with in-school youths), and there does not

appear to be much doubt that they are the more effective intermediary with this group.

Both large, national CBOs (such as the YMCA) and small,

local neighborhood organizations have been funded as program

operators under both YETP and YCCIP. The smaller organizations

experience more administrative difficulties and complain more

often about CETA red tape. In addition, the 10 percent YCCIP

ceiling on administrative costs causes hardship to both the smaller

and larger organizations. For example, the Project Director of

Oakland's San Antonio Project (described in Section III), said

that the organization would never again apply for YCCIP funds

because of the lack of administrative support. One Project

Director in Sonoma said that his organization applied for YETP

funds (rather than YCCIP funds) because the 10 percent ceiling did

not apply to YETP.

On the basis of the evidence collected in the field, it is

safe to say that approximately 90 percent of the enrollees in

non-school YETP and YCCIP are disadvantaged youths who meet the

70 percent BLS lower living standard criterion. According to

interviews with LEA officials, most of the students enrolled in

school YETP programs are equally disadvantaged, particularly in

San Francisco, Oakland and most parts of Santa Clara County.

41 4
-25-

Marin County, a bastion of the middle class with the third highest

median family income in the nation, has a good deal more difficulty

in identifying youths who meet the definition of "economically

disadvantaged." Although Sonoma County has a much higher percentage

of disadvantaged youth than Marin, the total numbers are a good

deal smaller than Lhose of San Francisco, Oakland and Santa Clara.

The County also has smaller percentages of minorities than the

three largest counties.

Overall, however, YETP and YCCIP are targeted for the disadvantaged.

VI.

SUBSTITUTION

The issue of substitution will be dealt with in detail in

Report Number 3. What follows is a general summary based on a

superficial perusual of available statistics on the incidence of

substitution in the five prime sponsor areas, and an issue raised

by the LEA coordinator in San Francisco.

Possibility of Substitution

Flagrant substitution could not have taken place in either

Sonoma or Marin Counties because neither prime sponsor funded

programs especially for youth (excepting summer work programs)

prior to YEDPA. A form of subtle substitution that might have

taken place is that the percentage of youths enrolled in regular

CETA programs could have been reduced to the extent that the same

number of youth served prior to YEDPA in regular programs would

now be served by means of YETP and YCCIP. There is no evidence

415
-26-

that this has taken place in either Marin or Sonoma, nor is there

any evidence that such an idea ever occurred to prime sponsor

staff. New youth programs have been created in both prime sponsor

areas, and the evidence seems to indicate that they are having a

positive effect on the availability of transitional services for

young men and women.

Of the five sample prime sponsors, the largest pre-YEDPA

programs for youth existed in San Francisco and Oakland. YEDPA

has caused no reductions in these programs, and according to staff

no reductions are contemplated in the future. Both dollars and

enrollments have remained constant. Because of the size of preYEDPA youth programs in San Francisco and Oakland, YEDPA's impact

on both youth unemployment and the availability of transitional

services for youth is a good deal less than it is in Sonoma,

Marin and Santa Clara.

Prior to YEDPA, Santa Clara had no youth division and only

three Title I programs especially for youth. Since YEDPA, a Youth

Division has been created, and Title I youth programs have not

been reduced, either in dollars or enrollments. YEDPA appears

to be having a positive impact in Santa Clara and may lead to

increased, rather than decreased, programming for youth.

In only one area -- Marin County -- were Title I enrollments

increased -- above previous levels -- with the intention of

transferring the excess to YETP when YEDP funds became available.

Statistics regarding the conclusions stated above will be

contained in November's report.
-27-

CETA and Out-Of-School Youth Under 18

California law requires that all youth under 18 be considered

"students" regardless whether or not they are attending schools,

and that the schools must provide classroom training for all

"students" under 18 years of age. State law also provides that

federal funds may not be used for services which are available

through state and local tax funds. San Francisco's LEA

coordinator pointed out that CETA, which has funded several Title

I and YETP classroom training projects -- outside the schools,

may be guilty of violating state law. She also brought up the

question of "minimum competency." State law requires that all

school districts eventually establish minimum competency criteria

in reading, writing, arithmetic and oral communication. She

warned that basic education and GED training under CETA should be

tied into minimum criteria; if this does not occur, CETA enrollees

may end up being short-changed. The only way that this could be

accomplished would be by requiring LEA approval of curricula used

by non-school deliverers of basic education and GED instruction.

These questions were raised only in San Francisco, although

the question of the 18 year-old mandatory school attendance law

was also raised in Oakland. "Technically," the Oakland Youth

Director said, "there are no school dropouts in California under

the age of 18." Certainly CETA prime sponsors should be aware of

state laws regarding education, and a case could be made that

CETA fund's (in San Francisco, at least) are being used to supplant

state and local tax funds that are theoretically available for

classroom training. However, whether classroom training is

actually available to all youth under 18 who are not attending

417
-28-

school is another question. San Francisco's LEA coordinator

suggested that CETA should at least request that classroom

training be made available (by the schools -- at no cost to CETA)

for CETA enrollees under the age of 18 who are not in school.

If the schools refused, it would be they who would be in violation

of state law -- not CETA. According to comments received from

LEA officials, CETA staff and program operators in Sonoma, Alameda

(Oakland) and Santa Clara Counties, many school districts would

refuse to provide additional training to youth under 18 who are

not in school, and in some cases, actually discourage the reenrollment of under 18 dropouts (the latter charge was made by a

program operator in Gilroy, Santa Clara). It should be emphasized

that no such charges were made with respect to San Francisco.

Although the San Francisco Unified School District is by no means

"rich," it appeared that San Francisco's Superintendent would

welcome CETA requests for additional instruction for under 18

dropouts, if for no other reason than these requests could be

used as a leverage in obtaining additional funds from the state.

These issues raised by the San Francisco LEA coordinator,

i.e., the use of CETA funds to provide services which are

theoretically available from state and local funds, and the

question of minimum competency criteria -- could have national

implications. Perhaps, this is an area which requires consulcation

between the Employment and Training Administration and the Office

of Education.

413
-29-

VII.

OVERHEAD

Prime sponsors are very much aware of keeping overhead costs

low. Although items are contained in every project budget for

the purchase of materials and supplies, the allocations for these

items do not appear to be exhorbitant, and it is apparent that

a good deal of free administrative and supervisory services are

being received from project operators, including both the schools

and CBOs. The Employment Service is actively involved in CETA

programs, including YEDPA programs, in Marin, San Francisco and

Santa Clara. All in all, high overhead costs do not appear to be

a serious problem, although as has been noted before, several

YCCIP operators complained about the 10 percent ceiling on

administrative costs.

VIII.

INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE

One of the goals of YEDPA is to achieve changes in roles and

relationships between the schools, private sector employers and

unions that would not otherwise occur. The assumptions underlying

this goal are that these institutions have been less than successful

in contributing school-to-work transitional services for youth -- especially disadvantaged youth, and that relationships between

CETA prime sponsors and the three institutions have been not at

all that they should be. The questions to be answered, therefore,

are whether these assumptions are correct (when applied to speclfic

prime sponsor areas), and, if they are correct, whether change is

419
-30-

occurring. The question is paramount with respect to the schools,

primarily because YEDPA funds are being channeled into the schools.

These issues are discussed in three subsections: LEA Agreements,

Unions, and Employers.

LEA Agreements

All five prime sponsors have successfully negotiated agreements

with LEAs. According to both CETA and school administrators,

differences in agency planning cycles have not been a major problem.

Academic credit is being arranged for participants in YETP

activities covered under LEA agreements, and for YCCIP activities

in which the schools are involved. Because of California's

mandatory 18 year-old school attendance law, it cannot be said

that out-of-school youth under the age of 18 are being served

through YETP-school activities -- unless continuation school

students can be considered "out-of-school" youth.

Because of the state law pertaining to classroom instruction

(described in Section VI), i.e., that federal funds cannot be

used to supplant state and local tax funds available (theoretically)

for school services, no CETA funds are being used to provide

school-YETP classroom training. Thus, all CETA funds being

channeled into the schools through LEA agreements are being used

to provide stipends or wages for in-school (or continuation school)

enrollees. These funds must be used to provide some kind of

work-education experience for disadvantaged enrollees. Thus, it

can be said that work experience opportunities for economically

disadvantaged students are being increased. The answer to the

more important question, however, as to whether these expanded

420
-31-

activities will be continued if (and/or when) CETA funds are withdrawn is for the most part negative.

Because of California law, the flexibility that may be permitted to CETAs in other states is not available to California

CETAs. CETA funds, which are federal, cannot be used to provide

expanded classroom services. Nevertheless, CETAs can make demands

in exchange for increased funds for work experience programs.

The extent to which this has occurred, and the quality of schoolYETP programs will be a subject of Report Number 3.

Experience in negotiating LEA agreements in three of the

sample prime sponsor areas is worthy of note.

San Francisco

Although the San Francisco CETA has enjoyed an excellent

working relationship with the Unified School District and there

is a good deal of mutual respect between the administrators of

both agencies, the LEA fought the final agreement and agreed to

sign it only because they "didn't want to rock the boat." The

disagreement centered on CETA's insistence that some of the fund§'

be channeled into the community college district and the Catholic

Youth Organization (CYO). LEA officials also charged that the

agreement was approved by the Manpower Advisory Council without

any school official in attendance. School officials insist that

it is not proper (or perhaps even legal) for the Unified School

District to be used as a channel for community college district

funds, and that the CYO is not an accredited educational

institution. The LEA would not have objected if the Archdiocese

of San Francisco had been designated as a recipient of 22 percent

421
-32-

funds, because the Archdiocese is accredited by the state and the

LEA is accustomed to working with the Archdiocese (over $1

million in state and local funds are provided to Arch diocesan

schools each year). School officials claimed that the CYO was

named as a recipient of 22 percent funds only because the CYO

lost its Title I grant. If this were true, it would be a case

of substitution. However, the San Francisco CETA Director claimed

that the only reason the CYO lost its Title I grant was that it

failed to submit its proposal on time. Since it was a good

program and the CETA did not want to terminate its enrollees, it

was included as part of the LEA agreement.

One of the questions regarding LEA agreements raised by the

Employment and Training Administration is whether new linkages

to post- secondary institutions is being achieved. Such linkages

are being achieved in San Francisco -- but over the vociferous

(and perhaps justified) objections of school administrators.

San Francisco's agreement also achieves linkages with parochial

schools, but again over the objections (in this case, entirely

justified) of the LEA.

Marin County

Marin County's LEA agreement provides the schools with 40

percent of its YEDPA funds. The reason for the large allocation

is tnat both Marin CETA and LEA staff believe that in-school

students have been shortchanged in the allocation of employment

and training funds. In Marin, the prevention of school dropouts

is a high priority item.

4'22
-33-

Sonoma County

There are four school districts in Sonoma County. Sonoma's

-,greement is with the County LEA, which in turn allocates funds

to the other three school districts. Sonoma CETA staff believe

that the LEA agreement will result in institutional change.

Historically school districts in Sonoma have been hostile to CETA,

and have had a poor record in serving potential dropouts, dropouts and problem youth. The LEA agreement is bringing the two

agencies closer together, and speclal programs for the disadvantaged are being initiated.

Summary

Is institutional change occurring? The evidence seems to

indicate that it is in Sonoma County. It appears that institutional

change was not necessary in Marin and Sa: Francis7.o, where

excellent relationships existed between CETA and the schools, and

where the schools appear to be committed to serving all youth -- disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged. The Oakland CETA has also

maintained excellent relationships with the schools in the past,

and the LEA agreement appears to be an additional supportive

factor. Four LEA agreements were signed in Santa Clara, and the

schools are involved in both non-22 percent YETP programs and

YCCIP. The major question appears to be: "Will all of this

progress cease if and when CETA funds are withdrawn?" This

question -- in addition to the specific programs funded under LEA

agreements -- will be explored in detail in Report Number 3

(November).

423
-34-

Employers

Employer involvement in YEDPA programs is at best passive

and at worst non-existent. Some Sonoma YETP enrollees are being

referred into the Vocational Exploration in the Private Sector

(VEPS) program, and until recently, a representative of Heulett

Packard, one of Sonoma's largest employers, served as Chairman

of the Ci.TA Youth Advisory Committee. He resigned as Chairman

because he did not believe that CETA jobs were improving the

employability of youth. As a business representative, "or one

who hires," he said that he thought he had something to offer as

a member of the Youth Advisory Committee. But, in his letter of

resignation, he claimed that because of the nature of CETA programs

his expertise was not required. At his urging, the Youth Advisory

Committee sent a "letter of protest" to the President, the

Secretary of Labor and other federal and state officials. The

responses to the letter caused his resignation:

"When I joined the Committee, I was dedicated to giving

what knowledge and energy I had to my personal goal of

improving the employability of Sonoma County youth. I

felt that my expertise, as one who hires people, would

be an asset to the Committee. I feel this has not been

the case.

"The Federal and State representatives who have responded

to our letter of protest have made it clear that the

purpose of youth programs is providing economic relief

and assuring the constructive use of youth's time. I

feel there is little I can contribute in the way of knowledge or judgement in this area."

4`'4
-35-

The former Chairman said that neither skill training nor

work experience were major factors in improving the employability

of youth (although they could help). What he believes is more

import is knowledge of the types of job opportunities available

in the area, how to search for work, how to behave at interviews

(or how to sell one's self), how to fill out application forms

and complete resumes, and other such subjects. He claimed that

employers seldom hired entry-level workers on the basis of skills

obtained or experience. What most youth need, he claimed, was

knowledge of the employment process and how to adapt one's self

to various employment opportunities.

At the present time, at least, it does not appear that YEDPA

is having significant impact on the employer establishment.

Unions

With respect to union involvement in YEDPA programs, the

outlook is somewhat better. Unions have played an active role in

San Francisco's YETP and YCCIP programs, and have been involved

to a lesser extent in Oakland. San Francisco's largest YCCIP

program, Youth Chance (described in Section III) is supported

actively by unions and union organizations, and its YETP Painter's

Apprenticeship program may turn out to he a model of its kind.

Santa Clara experienced some problems with union approval of

its YCCIP programs, but the end result may be increased union

participation. The Prime sponsor's approved YCCIP proposals were

sent to the appropriate unions for review, with the provisio that

if at the end of 45 days no word was heard from the unions, the

125
-36-

programs would be put into operation. At the end of the 45 day

period, the unions had not responded, so the project operators

were given the okay to begin. After the projects had been in

operation for a month, union representatives demanded a meeting

with CETA staff. They took the position that the projects had not

been approved by the unions and that, tnerefore, the projects

should not have been initiated. Their major complaint seemed to

be that one of the project supervisors was not a union member.

However, it was discovered that the supervisor in question had been

a union member and waL eligible for reinstatement. The unions

withdrew their objections when the supervisor once again became a

fully active union member. The upshot of the meeting was that

the unions would submit their own proposal for a YCCIP program

in fiscal 1979.

It appears, therefore, that YEDPA may be having a slight

impact on CETA-union relationships. It should be noted, however,

that both in the case of the schools and unions, participation in

YEDPA programs is based primarily on a transfer of money from

CETA to the two institutions. No such incentive exists for

employers.

IX.

CHOOSING DELIVERY AGENTS

CBOs, along with the schools, are the major participants in

YEDPA programs in all five prime sponsor areas. However, in San

Francisco, Oakland and Marin, the extent of CBO participation is

no greater under YEDPA than it has been under other CETA activities.

In Sonoma and Marin, on the other hand, the advent of YEDPA may

426
-37-

have caused a slight increase in CBO CETA participation.

Although some of the smaller CEOs, which are becoming involved

in employment and training programs for the first time, have

administrative difficulties (record keeping, reporting, budgeting,

etc.), on the whole CBOs appear well able to handle activities

under YETP and YCCIP.

In all five prime sponsor areas, CBOs appear to be an integral

part of the entire employment and training prcgram system. This

is especially true in San Francisco, Oakland and Santa Clara

where CBOs have historically been active in the "manpower" field.

Although some, but not all, CBOs perform their own outreach,

recruitment, testing and placement, clients must be certified by

central CETA, either through its own processes or through the

Employment Service. It is obvious that some of the ethnic CBOs

reach potential clients different from those who apply at the

Employment Service, or to CETA directly.

Since CBOs appear to be the only program operators (other

than the schools) in the five sample areas, the question as to

whether CBO clients "are the same as those of other delivery agents"

is irrelevant. Since school programs were not reviewed during

Round 2, it is impossible to say whether CBO clients are more or

less disadvantaged than school clients. It is certain, however,

that the CBOs are serving disadvantaged clients, and in some

cases, severely disadvantaged clients (See Section III).

4'7
-38-

X.

COORDINATING SERVICES FOR YOUTH

Virtually all prime sponsors believed that the compilation of

youth service inventories was a meaningless activity. Such

inventories existed prior to YEDPA and were used both by prime

sponsors and program operators. In fact, one Youth Director

stated that the available inventories were superior to anything

CETA could put together in a short period of time. Virtually all

prime sponsors claimed that they have always attempted to coordinate

CETA services with other available community services. In Oakland,

the mechanism for achieving such coordination of youth programs

had existed for two years prior to YEDPA. San Franicsco was the

first city in the nation to experiment with a Youth Opportunities

Center back in the 1960s. Nevertheless, the advent of YEDPA

resulted in the establishment of CETA Youth Divisions in Marin,

Sonoma and Santa Clara. Thus, it can be assumed that in these

areas there will be more attention given to the coordination of

youth activities in the future.

Formal agreements with the Employment Service have been

negotiated in San Francisco, Marin and Santa Clara, and agreements

with the schools have existed -- prior to YEDPA -- in all areas

with the exception of Sonoma. There is little evidence of

agreements, formal or informal, with other public agencies

(vocational rehabilitation, welfare, etc.). CBOs have been active

in CETA programsin all five areas.

As was noted in Report Number 1, Oakland has had a central

intake system for youth for well over two years, and San Francisco

423
-39-

created such a system under YETP. Although the remaining three

prime sponsors do not have a central youth intake center, they do

have centralized intake mechanisms for all CETA clients.

The coordination of summer youth programs with YETP and YCCIP

activities is a bit of a headache for some prime sponsors. The

problem is that summer youth jobs pay more than YETP and YCCIP

jobs. The result is that YEDPA enrollees want to switch over to

the summer job program. Since the purposes of the two programs

are different, this presents problems to prime sponsor staff.

Should different youth be involved in summer programs, e.g., those

who are more in need of income than employability training? If

the answer to this question is "yes," staff will have difficulties

in explaining the differences in wages paid by the two programs.

In Marin County, which has difficulties in recruiting

eligible youth for participation in summer -,rograms, all school

YETP enrollees will be transferred into the summer pr)gram in

June. Presumably, they will be reenrolled in YETP in September.

This may occur in other areas with respect to in-school YETP

enrollees. The wage differential problem pertains mainly to outof-school YETP and YCCIP enrollees. It is they who will suffer

wage losses if they are not allowed to enroll in the better paying

summer youth programs.

XI.

KEEPING FUTURE OPTIONS OPEN

It would be a mistake to conclude that prime sponsors have

made major structural changes in response to YEDPA. Youth Divisions

429
-40-

have either been created or expanded, but mainly with personnel

who were employed by the CETAs in other capacities. All respondent:

believe that these changes, though minor, have had a beneficial

effect on CETA youth activities. However, the question as to

whether expanded youth activities would continue if YEDPA funds

were withdrawn is unanswerable. The primes would be faced with an

administrative decision (one with political overtones): Should

other activities be curtailed in favor of youth activities, or

should youth activities be phased out? This is a question which

not one prime sponsor respondent was willing to answer.

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING orricr : 1980 0 - 328-610