DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 203 066 CE 029 116

AUTHOR Sum, Andrew: And Others

TITLE Program Evaluations: CETA Prime Sponsor

Self-Perceptions. Youth Knowledge Develoyment Report

3.20.

INSTITUTION Northeastern Univ., Boston, Mass. Center nor Labor

Market Studies.

SPONS AGENCY Employment and Training Administration (DOL),

Washington, D.C. Office of Youth Programs.

PUB DATE May 80

NOT! 224p.: Some pages will not reproduce well Sue to

light print. For a related document see CE 029

106.

AVAILABLE FROM Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC 20402 (Stock No.

029-014-00159-7, S6.50).

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC09 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTOPS Adolescents: *Annual Reports: Career Education:

*Compliance (Legal): *Employment Programs:

Evaluation: Federal Legislation: *Federal Programs:

;job Training: Program Evaluation; Quality Control:

Technical Writing: Young Adults: Youth Employment:

*Youth Programs

IDENTIFIERS *Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act

ABSTRACT

This report Is a summary assessment of the contents

of the FY 78 Year End Reports on Youth Employment and Training

Programs (YETP) and Youth Community Conservation End Improvements

Projects (YCCIP) programs that were submitted to the National Office

of Youth Programs. Section 1 introduces the study. It covers Youth

Employment and Demonstration Protects Act (YDEPA) legislation,

instructions for drafting year-end reports, and characteristics of

sample prime sponsors. Section 2 provides a detailed review and

analysis of the year end reports. It begins with an overall

assessment of content quality. A summary of findings of the overview

sections is followed by a detailed discussion of the content with

respect to ten separate topics related to the planning, targeting,

design, administration, monitoring, Ind evaluation of local programs

by prime sponsors. Section 3 summarizes prime sponsors'

recommendations for future changes in youth programs. Their plans for

altering program aspects dur1ng FT 79 are also discussed. The section

concludes with an overview of their perceived needs for technical

assistance. Section 4 contains detailed recommendations by the

authors for improving the quality and usefulness of future

YEDPA-related Year End Peports. (YLB)

****************************************mg**********.,*******************

Reproductions supplied by !DRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.

 '** *****************************************************************
.4712r...,,,11111,,Kr_.-taila11711175.Vkitellet11,1L175.10,10110WEAPar,11.-415.-L e 41,710.44.114,1=1,14.42.31.401,47.714,471K,S4.1.2.1,414. --,74..4,-,....11,-71,1112.44471.171U.11.."4-41,14r,derl7.3.4.1:0111213111141.,Cer10.112,-*X-J91.17..K."-....1.- 1, sp....1,1W.t1a7"..5L,LV47..3.7114..1_41Ar.,., , . -1-

.

.rfrr 7.71.r.i77741777.151771.71.4L.2,177.7t4aWasi.... 44, -,1.117

4".:".4...1:-.4,41.1.4.t4:111,47_/WETA/424..1.1.417141214it'11./..4117.151.-77.7.71A.1.11,

. -4,_-_,-.14",4491,31,14. 1 T , ' '" 1.-44. ny.s.srlsra,u1.1.w. 41 4.114.1.1 .-14-1,...:114,,,.....4k.tarZor.,:,,L17ZZSO.V.C.M.,...V.I.I.,194

.1147,/-15.719 4.1....`11.011c-S-, b71:31,14,25M,raatt 7,7, Ur, _-."11.1.1114.,_""br_.41 177-4.11/1/42,71,11.1,t1.747.41,717....I04,7011VAM,11,3

t. 4: ..41,LC...-,1-111.2712E174..A1 41,141.1..111.7411144.1,1. 7174...1'.7410,4514ge ittiPtC4.17.X..e.12.1%44,11/:,41.1-147a1....141rat..111t..81.9...47S,11114%G,S14,f-..4fet-11:71...117'_7V7..4.,71.4,1.C.e. 7.4.7,241171%.:4474,..-.L.,./NiOl741.27.11-14-1L11.1...--1-ELItilt4Z4.71,,L144t 1,715,14//71124117.11,4_1, "24&171t11".1.."1.4.11.4-7-4.7,..:1:".4S1,11:,-.74,1.01.174Cat. 1....10.11K-1.1t14.:147331(.442.1:4.4117111i.W-1111-Knet.'1.417JA441,71n.F. i 1AgALIFL12.W.1101t-ElEhlMite.V.,,W-44:.,

liCeinnarplinarer.Le.,..00 ",6111AVraMate,9C11,130AVIA61-t ot Waraaltaati1:014aWLZMilleatette,W.M.131W-17,1-4.,, AMMI777,....7711,71.1,77,111010.7..1711.,171

1.1181$17.17:781^Faal..17X110.1011.991127anio-71,7771.Wal 7.1111.t£ 711117517105....1117177771hAIWW7Wii, prentizausmaaro--..gem.rAct....,4=m.. waintionsnamteaftanraommu - 7C121faarr-S1NALTAILMAL1707.3.1C MDFXlirMaL01721773C.latiRVS.11, SlasmalileamtrasaatSmS

4

1i11110111161V

ITtrEtei4,14216:11ket.4.til 7117-r 31401-21

!Ur .>77. .7 1_, A, 77 '7'.1 ..11474^4172LC Villaa17C4, f.,..:7 .3 4' .1.711,1e

fun +744.47,- , /

f

I- 7 _ .. L -

1.4e k .0714 .71:47,14k r.111

,11.1114 'ZS 244. .> a= wF

7 .711 .10 ---

-4T11 af,IC 21 Is t_ 3, -a 1, 2 _ 4 -, -771-fair 114., "4-1447`44,- - 1 1 3,47

4t.1.5( .1 ca}gt.gz,

1." 4,4 74 44,41,4 "

1 1
...a.571.4. ar, . I*, I 1.7" r. s-waactin y-

-7.1.4 Art," 's ./1777, - t. ." btfl

eh her .7117 , +7, 7. 7..-, S;47.,1 r r ,er ",..-174., Or, un-przneo

116.173111M,, ft. LW lW1 an
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 3.20

CETA PRIME SPONSOR SELF-REVIEWS

Andrew Sum

Paul Harrington

Glen Schneider

Center for Labor Market Studies

Northeastern University

1

May 1980

4
OVERVIEW

CETA planning and management procedures reflect a quantitative rather

than qualitative orientation; decisions are based on needs analysis rather

than past experience; there is little retrospection or conscious goal

setting based on past lessons. The manpower planning paradigm emphasizes

distribution of resources and "slots" according to the relative distribution of needs. The analytical sections of plans usually focus on compliance with regulatory proscriptions and procedures but are not

designed to evoke self-analysis. Enforcement from the federal level

emphasizes a "planned vs. actual" approach based primarily on numbers, with

sporadic attention to enforcing certain regulatory finepoints, usually those that can be quantifiably documented.

YEDPA's aim was to encourage experimentation and change at the federal as well as local level, to promote linkages between agencies and to increase attention on the quality of services for youth. These goals were

enumerated in the original Planning Charter for the Youth Employment

and Demonstration Projects Act which was meant to inform prime sponsors in

a straightforward way as to federal objectives and priorities. With the start of a new program, with new mandates and procedures, it was not

possible nor was it desirable to put as much emphasis on traditional plans

and quantitative enforcement; the "plan vs. actual" approach only makes

sense once an effort has stabilized and realistic planning is possible.

It was assumed that local sponsors would use the flexibility, and, in some cases, purposeful vagueness in the regulations to develop their own agendas

within the national goals framework.

One effort in this direction was the requirement for an end-of-year

report on local YEDPA programs. This was designed to encourage prime

sponsors to review their experience, particularly the institutional and

qualitative dimensions, and to use this as a basis for redirection and

change in the second and third years of YEDPA. The format for the reports

was structured around the planning charter goals, and the instructions were

general in order to permit creative responses by the prime sponsors.

As this summary assessment of the end-of-year reports suggests, these aims were rarely achieved. Only a few prime sponsors responded to the

open-endedness of the report format. Most reports reflected merely nominal

compliance with another paperwork request. Few of the prime sponsors were able or willing to make qualitative judgments. The instructions from the

Office of Youth Programs, which were intended to guide rather than prescribe, were apparently too vague. With the many other paperwork

burdens on prime sponsors, it was decided, therefore, that end-of-year

plans would not be required in f:scal 1979.

Desoite the limited substance in the majority of reports, some prime sponsors made a serious effort to review past experience and to base

decisions on these lessons. They provided useful information on local

programs and objectives. The concept of local end-of-year review still makes sense, and the analysis suggests ways it can be realized through

design changes in the report format. The proposed consolidation of youth

programs, with greater emphasis on work and training site review and less
on quantitative planning, and with greater priority on building local

institutional delivery capacity and linkages, increases the need for this

type of retrospective, quality oriented approach. The end-of-year report

is, therefore, a tool that probably should be incorporated into the

management framework for the new programs.

This summary assessment is more than an anatomy of the shortcomings of

the first attempt at end-of-year reports. Even the least effective reports

contain information about local goals and priorities, and are reflective of

the "state-of-the-art" in local programs. The accomplishments and problems

noted by other case study evaluations are documented in this summary

assessment, along with local recommendations concerning how to improve

youth programs and policies.

This study is one of "knowledge development" activities mounted in

conjunction with research, evaluation and development activities funded

under the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977. The

knowledge development effort will result in literally thousands of written

products. Each activity has been structured from the outset so that it is

self-standing but also interrelated with a host of other activities. The

framework is presented in A Knowledge Development Plan for the Youth 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 for Fiscal

1980.

Information is available or will be coming available from these

various knowledge development efforts to help resolve an almost limitless

array of issues. However, policy and practical application will usually

require integration and synthesis from a wide range of products, which, in

turn, depend on knowledge and availahility of these products. A major

shortcoming of past research, evaluation and demonstration activities 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 developmc..t effort puts a premium on structured

analysis and wide dissemination.

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 OYP knowledge development efforts. 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, the measurement instruments

and their validation, the translation of knowledge into policy, and the

strategy For dissemination of findings.

ii
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 of dimensions of youth

labor market problems, and policy issue assessments.

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 an Training Programs, Youth Community

Conservation and Improvement Projects, and the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit.

4. Service and Participant Mix: The evaluations and demonstrations

summarized 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 mix disadvantaged and more affluent

participants, as well as youth with older workers.

5. Education and Training A roaches: The products in this category

present the findings of structure 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.

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 cross-cutting

analyses of the practical lessons concerning "how-to-do-it." Tssues 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 Alternatives: The products in this

category represent assessments of demonstrations of alternative program and

delivery arrangements such as consolidation, year-round preparation for

summer programs, the use of incentives, and multi-year tracking of

individuals.

10. Special Needs Groups: The products in this category present

findings on the special problems of and the programmatic 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 ccvered include the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Projects,

iii

7
private sector initiatives, the national youth service experiment, and

energy initiatives in weatherization, low -head hydroelectric dam restoration, windpower, and the like.

12. Institutional Linkages: The products in this category include

studies of institutional arrangements and linkages as well as assessments

of demonstration activities to encourage such linkages with education,

volunteer groups, drug abuse, and other youth serving agencies.

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. In turn, each discrete

knowledge development project may have a series of written products

addressed to different dimensions of the issue. 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 demonstrations. Hence, the multiple products under a knowledge

development activity are closely interrelated and the activites in each

brood cluster have significant interconnections.

This evaluation of the early experience under YEDPA should be read in

conjunction with the first two analyses of YETP and YCCIP implementation by

the National Council on Employment Policy: Initial Youth Employment and

Demonstration Projects Act YEDPA) Experience at the Local Level and The

Unfolding Youth Initiatives. Likewise, Youth Initiatives presents an ea17

summary assessment by the Office of Youth Programs. All of these are in

the "program evaluations" category. The volumes in the "design and

organizational alternatives" category also present elements to be incorporated into new youth programs and approaches such as planning are

analyzed in the "implementation issues" category.

Robert Taggart

Administrator

Office of Youth Programs

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview

Section One: Introduction to the Study

Passage of YEDPA Legislation 1

The Instructions for Drafting the Year End Reports 3

Characteristics of Sample Prime Sponsors 6

Organization of the Remainder of the Report 8

Section Two: Findings of the Prime Fponsors' Year End Reports

on FY 78 YETP and YCCIP Program Operations and

Performance

Overall Quality of the Report 11

Findings of the Overview Section of the End of Year Report 15

Problems with Preparing Year End Reports for BOS Prime Sponsors 20

Youth Planning Councils and Youth Participation in the Planning

and Administration of Local YEDPA Programs 21

Targetting Youth Resources 33

Prime Sponsor Discussions of the Identification and Selection

of Local Target Groups for Participation in YETP and YCCIP

Programs 35

Information on Significant Segments within the Targetting

Section of the End of Year Reports 40

Types of Services Provided to YETP and YCCIP Program

Participants

Problems in Developing OJT Slots for YETP Participants

Implementation of YCCIP Projects During FY 78

43

49

52

The Quality of Work Experience for Participants in YETP

and YCCIP Programs 58

Service Delivery Agents for Prime Sponsors' YETP Programs 65

Knowledge Development Activities of Prime Sponsors: Innovative

or Exemplary Program Design 74

V

9
The Program Substitution Issue 84

Alternative Interpretations of the Substitution Avoidance

issue in the EYR 85

The Substance of the Prime Sponsor Discussions of the

Substitution Issue 88

Evidence Provided in Prime Sponsor End of Year Reports

to Support the View that Substitution was Avoided 90

Problems in Interpreting the Information Related to the Substitution Issue Provided by Prime Sponsors in their End

of Year Reports 90

Prime Sponsor Recommendations Regarding Substitution Avoidance 97

Institutional Linkages 98

LEA Agreements 99

Linkages with Labor Unions 108

Linkages with the Private Sector 112

Youth Program Supplementation 118

Youth Program Coordination 123

Implementation Issues 128

Short-Term Outcomes of YETP and YCCIP Programs 137

FY 78 YEDPA Program Evaluation Activities of Prime Sponsors 147

Analysis of Evaluation Findings 151

General Recommendations for the Preparation, Dissemination,

and Use of the FY 79 Year End Reports on YETP and YCCIP Programs 159

Section Three: Prime Sponsors' Plans for Improving FY 79 YEDPA

Program Performance; Recommendations for ETA ani

the National Office of Youth Programs 163

Prime Sponsors'Recommendations for ETA and OYP 169

Section Four: Presentation of a Revised Set of Instructions for

Preparing the FY 79 Year End Reports

Overview of the Instructions for the FY 79 YEDPA Year End Report 172
Overview Section 173

Youth ilogram Planning 174

Selection and Delivery of Services to Youth Target Groups 175

Design of the Servicei Mix 177

Service Delivery Agents 178

Exenplary 0/ Innovative YETP and YCCIP Programs 179

Institutional Linkages and the LEA Agreement 180

Program Supplementation 181

Program Coordination 182

Program Substitution 183

Immediate and Short-Term Outcomes of FY 79 YEDPA Programs 184

Evaluation of Program Effectiveness 185

Summary of Program Accomplishments 186

Recommendations for Future Youth ProgramMing 186

Footnotes 187

Appendix A 209
Section One: Introduction to the Study

Passage of EDPA Legislation

The employment prob]ems of teenagers throughout the U.S. were a continuous

source of concern to national public policymakers throughout the 1970's. The man

annual average rate of unemployment of 16-19 year olds during the 1970-77 period was

approximately 17.0%, ranging from a low of 14.5% in 1973 to a high of 19.9% during

the peak re:cessic r of 1975. 1

The unemployment problems of black teens and

young persons poverty families were extraordinarily severe, with annual

average unemployment rates for black teens in the 30-40% range during the decade of

the 1970's.

2

In response to these problems, the Congress of the United States

passed legislation during 1977 to provide immediate and long-term solutions to the

employment problems of young persons throughout the nation, with particular emphasis

placed upon young persons living in economically disadvantaged families. The act

known as the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977 was signed into

law by President Carter on August 5, 1977. 3

The Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977 (hereafter referred

to as YEDPA) provided funding for four new employment and training programs for youth.

These four new programs were known as Youth Employment and Training Programs (YETP),

Youth Community Conservation and Improvement Projects (YCCIP), the Youth Incentive

Entitlement Pilot Projects (YIEPP), and the Young Adult Conservation Corps (YACC). The

first three of the above YEDPA-related programs were authorized under amendments to

Title III of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973 (hereafter referred

to as CETA) while the YACC program was established Under a separate new title (Title VII)

of CETA. 4

The purposes, structure, end targetting features of these four programs do differ

in a number of substantive ways. 5

The YETP and YCCIP programs were intended to achieve

a number of different objectives. According to the rules and regulations governing

the operations of these two YEDPA programs, their purpose was:

"to employ and increase the future employability of young persons, to help

coordinate and improve existing career development, employment and training

programs, and tp test different approaches in solving the employment problems of youth."°

1,v
-2-

The programs funded under YEDPA were intended to be viewed in part as

"demonstration projects" that would hopefully test the effectiveness and viability

of alternative employment and training programs for youth throughout the nation.

The Office of Youth Programs of the Employment and Training Administration has

attempted to Obtain information on the nature, structure, operations, and ofteotiveness of these youth programs through a variety of different methods.7

One . ce

of information on the operations of YETP and YCCIP programs during Fiscal Year 1978

is that of the Year End Reports on YETP and YCCIP programs that were to have been

prepared by each of the prime sponsors throughout the nation.8 These reports were

primarily intended to provide the regional and national offices of ETA with information on the major features and accomplishments of YETP and YCCIP programs in each

prime sponsor area durimj FY 78.9 Prime Sponsors were asked to focus primarily upon

the more "qualitative aspects" of program performance during FY 78, but were

expected to analyze the factors contributing to the successes and failures of their

programs in achieving local goals and objectives during FY 78.

This report has primarily been designed to provide a detailed surtnary and Critical

assessment of the contents of the FY 78 Year End Reports on YETP and YCCIP programs

that were submitted by prime sponsors to the national office of youth programs. The

findings are based upon the actual FY 78 End of Year Reports of 57 prime spom,ors

throughout the nation. 10

The sample of prime sponsors whose End of Year Reports were

included in the study wan selected by the Office of Youth Programs. The characteristics

of these prime sponsors will be described in a latter part of this section of the

report. The recommendations of these prime sponsors for changes in either the YEDPA

legislation or in the rules and regulations governing YETP and YIP programs as well

as their plans for improving future program performance at the local level are also

described in this report.
-3-

The Instructions for Drafting the Year End Reports

During the summer of 1978, the regional offices of the Employment and

Training Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor forwarded to CETA prime

sponsors in their regions a set of instructions for preparing an End of Year

Teport (EYR) on YETP and YCCIP programs in their area.11 As noted above, the

report was primarily intended to describe and assess major features of the operations and performance of their FY 78 Youth Employment and Training Programs(YETP)

and their Youth Community Conservation and Improvement Projects(YCCIP) funded under

the 1977 Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act. 12 The reports of prime

sponsors initially were to be forwarded to the regional office of ETA for their

review and then submitted to the national Office of Youth Programs. The instructions

for the drafting of these EYR reports indicated quite clearly that the reports were

primarily intended to provide the regional and national offices of ETA with information on the overall degree of success achieved by prime sponsors in attaining the

program goals and objectives that they established for themselves in their FY 1978

YEW and YCCIP program plans. The instructions also stated quite explicitly that

the primary focus of these EYR reports was to be upon the "qualitative aspects" of

performance rather than the quantitative and that their contents were expected to be

"descriptive" rather than highly analytical in nature. The instructions did note,

however, that the prime sponsor was expected to provide some "analysis" of the factors

influencing successes as well as failures in achieving local youth program objectives.

The preparation of this Year End Report on YETP and YCCIP programs would ideally

prove to be useful not only to the regional offices of ETA and the national Office of

Youth Programs, but also to the local prime sponsor itself In the process of preparing

such a report, prime sponsor staff would ideally reflect back upon the goals and

objectives that they had established for their local youth programs, assess in a

critical fashion the actual strengths and weaknesses of the operations of their youth
-4-

programs in achieving those goals and objectives, and give serious consideration to

the need for modifying existing strategies, adopting new strategies, or establishing

more realistic and feasible objectives. Such self-assessments of program operations

would ideally be required of all prime sponsors for programs administered under each

major ChLA Title, including Titles II-B, C, II-D, VI, and VII under the 1978 CETA

legislation.

The instructions provided to prime sponsors for the drafting of the End of Year

Report an YETP and YCCIP program operations and accomplishments indicated that the

report should begin withaswtion devoted to an "Overview of YEDPA Operations" in the

prime sponsor's planning area during FY 78. This overview section was also expected

to provide a comparison of YEDPA program accomplishments with those of Title I youth

programs and summer youth programs previously administered by the prime sponsor. YETP

and YCCIP programs were to be separately discussed whenever they were believed to have

produced different impacts.

The remainder of the report was to have been devoted to discussions of a series

of issues related to each of the ten program principles contained in the national

Office of Youth Programs' Planning Charter for the Youth Employment and Demonstration

Act of 1977.13 This planning charter was developed by the Office of Youth Programs

during the summer of 1977 and was intended to serve as a general guide to prime

sponsors in the planning and administration of their local YEDPA programs during FY 78.

The ten guiding principles and assumptions outlined in this planning charter were

the following:

1. Knowledge development is a primary aim of the new youth programs.

2. The content and quality of, work experience must be improved.

3. Youth participation should be emphasized.

4. Resources should go to those in great need.

5. Substitution must be avoided.

6. Overhead must be minimized.
7. The new youth programs are not the cutting edge for institutional change.

8. Emphasis must be placed on approaches and delivery agents of demonstrated

merit.

9. The development of a separate employment and training system for youth is

not encouraged.

10. The new youth programs are not permanent.

For each of the above ten principles or assumptions, the prime sponsor was

asked to discuss the following four issues:14

"1. Local goals established.

2. Success or failures of these goals.

3. Reasons for success or failure.

4. Plans to maintain goals or the establishment of new ones."

In addition to the above four issues, the required discussions of the

instructions also outlined a suggested set of topics for each of the ten principles

that prime sponsors were to consider addressing in their End of Year Reports. For

example, with respect to the charter principle related to knowledge develacnent,

prime sponsors were asked to consider discussing such issues as local innovative

programs for youth that were being implemented within a research and demonstration

framework, evaluation methods employed to assess the effectiveness of such programs,

and the findings.of such evaluation efforts, including the impacts of programs upon

the attitudes and skill acquisition of participants. The results of any mixed

income experiments funded by the prime sponsor under YETP were also to be discussed

in this section of the report. 15

The final section of the reporting instructions asked prime sponsor's to provide

a summary of the major findings of their Year End Reports, including the overall

strengths and weaknessess of their programs, and to present policy recommendations

for enhancing the future capability of the prime sponsor to more effectively deliver

employment and training services to youth in their local planning area. It was

also suggested that the overall length of the report not be in excess of 25 pages.
Characteristics of the Sample of Prime Sponsors

It was originally anticipated that the review of the findings of the Year.

End Reports on FY 78 YETP and YCCIP programs would be based upon a sample of 62

CETA prime sponsors throughout the nation. The sample was selected by the Office

of Youth Programs and,while including prime sponsors from each type of political

jurisdiction (city, consortium, county, and balance of state) and of varying

population sizes, d-1 contain an over-representation of the large prime sponsors.

The End of Year Reports of the prime sponsors were made available to the Office

of Youth Programs throughout the winter and early spring of 109. By May, the End

of Year Reports of 57 of the 62 prime sponsors/included in the initial sample, had

been submitted to the national Office of Youth Programs and forwarded to the authors

of this study. At that time, a decision was made to base the study on the contents

of the EYR reports submitted by these 57 prime sponsors16 Appendix A of this report

provides an alphabetical listing of these 57 prime sponsors together with information

on their type (city, county, consortium, or balance of state) and their population

size class.

Table 1 below provides inforpation on the distribution of the 57 prime sponsors

included in this study by type of prime sponsor iuriSdiction. County prime sponsors

(18) accounted for the highest proportion of prime sponsors (31.6%) in the sample

and were closely followed by balance of state prime sponsors (29.8%). Thirteen of the

57 prime sponsors (22.8%) were consortia, and the remaining nine (15.8%) were city

prime sponsors.
-7-

Table: 1

DISTRIBUTION OF PRIME SPONSORS BY

TYPE OF PRIME SPONSOR (4=57)

Type Of (A) (B)

Prime Sponsor Number Percent

City 9 15.8%

County 18 31.6%

Consortium 13 22.8%

Balance of State 17 29.8%

Tbtal 57 100.0%

Is
-8-

Table 2 provides information on the distribution of the 57 prime sponsors

by the overall size of their population. Twenty-four or 42.1%, of the prime

sponsors in the sample contained populations of less than one million persons, 15

(26.3%) contained populations between 1 and 2 million, and the remaining prime

sponsors (31.6%) had populations greater than 2 million persons.

Organization of the Remainder of the Report

The remainder of iris report consists of three additional sections. Section

Two provides a detailed review and analysis of the contents of the prime sponsors

FY 78 Year End Reports on YETP and YCCIP programs. The section begins with an

overall assessment of the quality of the contents of these reports, including their

overall degree of compliance with the ETA reporting instructions and the usefulness

of the information contained therein to regional ETA, national ETA, and national OYP

administrators and staff. A summary of the findings of the overview section.: of

the EYR's is then presented, and this is followed by a detailed discussion of the

information contained in the End of Year Reports with respect to ten separate topics

related to the planning, targetting, design, administration, monitoring, and evaluation of local YETP and YCCIn programs by prime sponsors. In the aggregate, these ten

topics cover practir,"..1 of the issues raised in the Youth Planning Charter.

Section Three of till. '.euort presents a summary of prime sponsors' recommendations

to the national Office of Youth Programs with respect to future changes in youth

programs, including suggestions f.ne modifications in eligibility criteria, the rules

and regulations governing the operations of YETP and YCCIP programs, and overall

funding levels. Prime sponsors' plans for altering the planning, design, administration, and evaluation of their local youth programs during FY 79 are also discussed.

This section concludes with a brief overview of prime sponsor's perceived needs for

various types of technical assistance from the regional offices of ETA and/or the

national Office of Youth Programs.

19
Table: 2

DISTRIBUTION OF PRIME SPONSORS BY

SIZE OF THEIR POPULATION (N = 57)

(A) (B)

Population Size Number Percent

Less than 1,000,000 24 42.1%

1,000,000 to

1,999,999 15 26.3%

2,000,000 + 18 31.6%

Tbtal 57 100.0%
-10-

The final section l of the report will contain a detailed set of recommendations

by the authors for improving the quality and usefulness of future YEDFA-related

Year End Reports. The suggestions include a revision of the overall purposes of

the End of Year Reports and a substantial revision of the nature and structure

of the reporting instructions provided by the regional offices of ETA to prime

sponsors. An alternative set of specific instructions for drafting the FY 79 Year

End Reports on YETP and YCCIP programs will be presented in an Appendix to this

report.
Section Two: Findings of the PrimeSE2nsors'

Year End Reports on FY 78 YETP and

YIP Program Operations and Performance

Overall Quality of the Reports

As noted in the previous section, the Year End Reports were primarily designed

to provide public policymakers and employment and training program administrators

at the local, regional, and national levels with information on the performance of

prime sponsors' YETP and YCCIP programs during FY 78. The usefulness of these

End of Year Reports will, thus, be critically dependent upon both the extent to

which prime sponsors complied with the requests of ETA for specific information on

program performance and upon the details and quality of the information on local

youth program performance presented by prime sponsors in these Year End Reports.

The review of the End of Year Reports on FY 78 YETP and YCCIP programs prepared

by the 57 prime sponsors in the sample revealed a substantive diversity in the quality

of their contents. These reports differed from one another rather sharply in terms

of their length, their degree of adherence to the actual reporting instructions, the

amount of information that they provided in each of toe youth program issues that

they were asked to address, and the usefulness of the information reported. The

length of the reports varied from a few pages (4-6) to over a hundred pages.17 While

the length of the report submitted by a prime sponsor did not always positively

correlate with its overall quality, it was generally found that their length and the

usefulness of the information provided therein were strongly correlated in a positive

direction. The shortest reports generally provided little, if any, useful information on either the actual nature of the operations or the overall strengths and

weaknesses of the YETP and YCCIP programs administered by the prime sponsor during

FY 78. In fact, very few of the prime sponsors provided any substantive analysis of
-12-

the strengths and weaknesses of their programs in terms of accomplishing the

objectives that they set for themselves in their FY 78 plans. This lack of

substantive analysis may have been due to the fact that many of these prime

sponsors had not established specific objectives for their local youth programs

in many of the areas covered by the Youth Planning Charter. 18

Approximately one-third of the prime sponsors whose End of Year Reports were

reviewed during the course of this study failed to structure their reports in close

accord with the instruct :.ons provided to them by the regional office of the Employment and Training Administrz. n. Among those prime sponsors that compiled at least

in a general way with the instructions, many failed to include a specific discussion

of local goals with respect to each princil.le degree of success or failure in

achieving those goals, or an analysis of the factors contributing to success or

failure. The substantial diversity in the structure and contents of these reports

seriously complicated the task of pro' ieing a comparative assessment of their

findings.19

While the specific reasons for the failure of many prime sponsors to abide by

the reporting instructions in the preparation of their End of Year Reports are not

known by the authors of this report, it is quite likely that the following three

factors were primarily responsible. First, same of the prime sponsors had likely

not substantially addressed many of the issues raised in the Youth Planning Charter in

their FY 78 plans and/or had not established specific goals for each of the ten

principles appearing in the Charter. As a result, they could not provide any discussion of goal attainment in their End of Year Reports.

Secondly, the ordering of the issues in the instructions for drafting the FY 78

Year End Reports was rather chaotic even though it did follow the structure of the

Youth Planning Charter. A report organized precisely in a manner called for by the

instructions would have presented material that seemed to have little organization.

For example, the information required to address principle number one of the

23
-13-

Youth Planning Charter (local knowledge development) has little direct relationship to principle number two (quality of work experience provided by youth). As a

result, some prime sponsors organized the material in their EYR's in a manner far

different from that called for in the instructions. In several cases, this led to

a more readable and informative report on local YEDPA program operations; however,

in other instances, this resulted in a failure to cover a major portion of the topics

that were presented in the instructions.

Thirdly, same prime sponsors apparently did not place much of a priority on

the drafting of the EYR reports. The limited length and overall poor quality of a

sizeable fraction of these reports reflects an unwillingness (or inability) of prime

sponsor staff to devote much time or effort to the task. A number of these reports

were so poorly written and so unresponsive to the issues raised in the instructions

that they should not have been considered acceptable by the regional offices of

ETA or by the Office of Youth Programs. A more active monitoring role by regional.

ETA and national Office of Youth Program staff would seem to be needed to improve the

overall quality of future Year. End Reports.

The shortcomings of the EYR reports prepared by the 57 prime sponsors included

in this study were undoubtedly influenced by a variety of factors, including the

lack of specific objectives for many Youth Planning Charter goals in the FY 78 YEDPA

plans of prime sponsors as well as by a lack of time, commitment, and expertise of

prime sponsor youth program administrators and staff involved in their preparation.

It is our view, however, that a number of the shortcomings were likely the result of

vagueness and inconsistencies in the reporting instructions provided to prime sponsors

by the regional offices of the Employment and Training Administration. The contents

of future Year End Reports should be structured in a manner that would reflect

careful assessments of local youth program operations and accomplishments by prime
-14-

sponsor administrators and staff. By revising somewhat the purposes of the EYR

reports and by drastically altering the nature and structure of the reporting

instructions, we believe that the Office of Youth Programs will be able to receive

a more useful and informative set of reports on youth progran operations and

accomnlishments from prime sponsors. The final section of this report will provide

a series of specific recommendations for altering the purposes and formats of these

Year End Reports, including a revised. set of instructions for their preparation by

prime sponsors.20

A simple change in both the purposes of the Year End Reports and the official

instructions for preparing than will not automatically lead to a substantive improvement

in their quality and usefulness for policymaking purposes at the local, regional,

or national level. The actual preparation of such reports has to be given a high

priority by the national. Office of Youth Programs, the regional offices o' the

Employment and Traininc7 Administratiln, a by the prime sponsors thsmselves. In

addition, the contents (sr these reports have to tiq Dmithred closely by national

OYP staff, regional ETA field recri,enthtives, and regional ETA administrators. A

more detailed discussion of ta:se monitoring responsibilities will be presented in

the concluding section of this report.
-15-

Findings of the Overview Section

Of The

End of Year Report

The instructions provided to prime sponsors for the drafting of the End of

Year Report on YEDPA program operations noted that the report should contain an

introductory section devoted to an "overview of YEDPA operations" in the prime

sponsor's planning area during FY 78. 21 This overview section was also expected

to provide a comparison of YEDPA program accomplishments with those of Title I

youth programs and summer youth programs (SPEDY) previously administered by the

prime sponsor. The instructions did not, however, either suggest specific topics

to be covered in this overview section or specific types of comparisons to be made

between YETP and YCCIP program accomplishments and those of Title I and summer

youth programs. 22

As a result of the lack of specificity regarding appropriate

contents of this overview section, the material provided by prime sponsors in their

End of Year Reports (EYR's) varied considerably in terms of overall length of the

overview section, the topics covered in this section, and the substance of their

presentations.

Nearly all of the prime sponsors (960 did include an overview section in their

End of Year Report. The overview sections of the EYR reports submitted by the 57

prime sponsors included in the study varied substantially in length, ranging from

one paragraph to eleven full pages of text. Only a limited number of the prime

sponsors (less than 10%) provided any discussion of either the magnitude or nature

of youth employment problems within their local planning jurisdictions.23 In addition only a few of the prime sponsors provided any discussion of the ways in which

their locally designed YEDPA programs would be used in combatting youth employment

problems.

Several prime sponsors noted that they had funded an expansion of job placement

services for youth to increase their immediate employment prospects, that they had
-16-

created subsidized job opportunities for youth to increase their immediate overall

employment levels and that they were providing work experience, institutional

training, and on-the-job training services to youth to enhance their long-term

employability and to reduce their future reliance on public assistance. Other

prime sponsors noted that their programs were not primarily intended to lead to

unsubsidized employment immediately upon termination from the local YEDPA system,

but rather to lead to a return to school or to enrollment in another more advanced

educational or job training program. For example, one prime sponsor noted in its

overview section that among the primary goals of its YIP projects was that of:

"...providing academic and skills training supports (e.g., remedial education),

along with work actiyities...which will lay the foundation for incentive to pursue

more formalized study culminating in further vocational training, a return to school

and/Or GED attainment."

Mile the instructions fOr drafting the EYR's did not explicitly suggest that

information on local youth employment problems be provided by prime sponsors, an

understanding of prime sponsors' perceptions of youth employment problems wouldhave

been useful. Future reporting instructions for EYR reports should request prime

sponsors to provide a Irief background statement on their assessments or perceptions

of youth employment problems in their local planning area, both in the aggregate and

for particular youth subgroups. Prime sponsors should also be asked to provide a

summary of the basic goals and objectives of their YETP and YCCIP programs related

to overcoming such problems, both immediately through the provision of subsidized

employment and over the long run through the provision of employment and training

services.

More than 90% of the prime sponsors did provide some information on the general

features and/Or specific contents of their YETP and YCCIP programs in the overview

section. These presentations ranged from very brief discussions of the major types
-17-

of activities in which youth participated under YETP and YCCIP programs to lengthy

and detailed discussions of the objectives of YEDPA programs, characteristics of

target groups selected, mix of services provided, types of service delivery agents,

and expected benefits of programs for both participants and the community at large.

The Oakland, California prime sponsor's overview section stands out as one of the

most detailed and informative in this regard.

Only slightly more than one-half of the prime sponsors (55%) provided some discussion of the accomplishments of their YEDPA programs relative to those previously

produced by their Title I and summer youth programs even though such a discussion

was specifically requested of prime sponsors in the instructions. The types of comparisons between YEDPA programs and previous Title I and summer youth programs

provided by prime sponsors in the overview section were quite diverse in nature. The

most frequently-cited comparisons focused upon types of services provided under the

various programs (institutional training, on-the-job training, work experience,

transitional services), the quality of the work experience provided to participants,

and the numbers and types of terminations, particularly those obtaining unsubsidized

emplcyment.24 Other types of comparisons cited by prime sponsors in this overview

section included total numbers of youth served, target group selection, degree of

involvement by the private sector, union involvement, degree and nature of counseling

services, more personalized attention to youth, skill acquisition outcomes, and costs

of services.

A number of these prime sponsors claimed that their local YEDPA programs had

succeeded in providing either higher quality services to youth or a wider variety of

services to youth. Others indicated that their YEDPA programs were mare specifically

designed to provide unsubsidized employment opportunities for youth than their

previous youth programs. Among the remarks offered by prime sponsors with respect

to these differential accomplishments of their local YEDPA programs were the following:

28
-18-

"YCCIP has permitted the Consortium to provide a unique service to youth

that would probably not have been offered without the program's availability.

YCCIP provided participants the opportunity to acquire marketable knaaledge and

skills for future vocational growth."

"Our YETP programs provided work experience plus career information and

counseling services to all participants...with an added emphasis on training.

Prior to YEDPA, youth employment translated into work experience only."

"The cynicism of youth participants that accompanied so much of Title I

maintenance programs was seldom evident at YETP or YCCIP sites."

"The new youth programs under YEDPA have a different emphasis: that of

preparing the youth for unsubsidized employment...The earlier, Title I program

was unsuccessful in providing any marketability in terms of future employment

for youths participating in the program."

A few of the prime sponsors also noted that the emphasis on local knowledge

development activities in the Youth Planning Charter did provide them an cpporunity

to begin to undertake systematic evaluations of the performance of their employment

and training system. As one prime sponsor remarked,

"For the first time, the prime sponsor has assumed a posture of research and

development orientation, consciously building a mix of programs on conceptual

constructs related to the youth population and its employment problems."

As revealed above, the prime sponsors' discussions of the relative accomplishments of their YEDPA programs were not only quite diverse, but were more frequently

oriented to the "input" side of these programs, i.e., the characteristics of those

served by the various youth programs and the types and nature of services provided

to participants, rather than to the outcanes of the programs from either the participants' or community's standpoint; i.e., types of skills acquired, changes in work
-19-

attitudes, types of terminations. The reporting instructions for future End of

Year Reports on YEDPA program operations should be redesigned so that the material

provided by prime sponsors is both more useful for youth program comparison purposes at the local level and more informative to policymakers at the regional and

national level. To achieve these objectives, the reporting instructions should

provide more specific guidelines as to the types of information on youth program

acomplishments that are being sought and should allow the prime sponsors more time

to suhnit these reports to the regional offices of the Employment and Training

Administration and to the national Office of Youth Programs. The additional time

would allow fourth quarter data on participant characteristics and types of program

terminations, particularly those entering employment, to be available for use in

the Year End Reports for FY 79.25

Finally, the overview sections of the Year End Reports were reviewed to

determine whether the prime sponsors had provided any discussion of prOblians

encountered in operating their FY 78 YEDPA programs and of the effects of such

problems on the attainment of their FY 78 planned program goals and objectives. 26

Approximately 40% of the 57 prime sponsors provided in the overview sections of their

End of Year Reports some discussion of problems encountered in operating their FY 78

YEDPA programs.A rather wide range of problems were cited by prime sponsors, with

difficulties in obtaining employer cooperation in marketing OJT services for youth,

obtaining LEA agreements, implementing e*perimental programs on time, and placing

terminees into unsubsidized employment being mentioned most frequently. Other problems mentioned by prime sponsors in this overview section included difficulties in

obtaining YCCIP project proposals fran CBO's, delays in recruitment and assessment of

eligible participants, turnover among youth in selected programs, and recruitment

of women for "non-traditional" job slots in YCCIP projects. 27

A number of the above

implementation problems will be discussed at greater length in a latter section of

this report.

30
-20-

Problems with Preparing Year End Reports for BOS Prime Sponsors

Before continuing with the review of the findings of the prime sponsors'Year

End Reports, it should be noted that the preparation of this report would be

expected to pose particular difficulties for a Balance of State Prime Sponsor

containing a large number of subgrantees. The subgrantees comprising a particular

Balance of State Prime Sponsor may be faced with substantially different types of

youth employment problems and may have designed a widely varying mix of employment

and training services to combat those problems. Providing detailed information on

such a diverse set of YETP and YCCIP programs can be a formidable task for a Balance

of State prime sponsor. The New York Balance of State Prime Sponsor attempted to

deal with this task inanexernplary manner. This particular prime sponsor utilized

a 7 page questionnaire developed by central office staff to obtain information on

YEDPA program operations from the 32 different counties comprising the Balance of

State planning jurisdiction. The prime sponsor felt that such an approach to the

preparation of the Year End Report was required since the planning process had allowed

the subgrantees to develop programs best suited to the needs of youth in their areas.

The questionnaire also enabled these subgrantees to "identify areas of individual

county concern."

The questionnaire used by the prime sponsor was well designed and was capable

of capturing sufficiently detailed information on YETP and YCCIP program operations

to hypothetically allow the prime sponsor to prepare a rich and informative report

on YEDPA program operations. The adoption of such an approach to the collection of

information on YEDPA program operations in Balance of State prime sponsor areas

should be encouraged by the national Office of Youth Programs.
-21-

Youth Planning Councils and Youth

Participation in the Planning and

Administration of Local YEDPA Programs

In accord with the principles contained in the Youth Planning Charter, prime

sponsors were expected to make substantive efforts to provide youth an opportunity

to actively participate in the planning, design, and administration of YEDPA programs at the local level. 28

Their role in the planning of YEDPA programs was to be

achieved through membership on the Youth Planning Councils that were mandated by the

Congress in the YEDPA act itself and by active participation in the deliberations

of those councils. 29

The Youth Planning Charter also emphasized that. the public

and private non - profit agencies administering programs under YEDPA should make good

faith efforts to hire youth, particularly those whohad previously participated in

employment and training programs, for administrative positions in their agencies.

As noted above the YEDPA legislation itself contained a series of provisions

related to the establishment of Youth Planning Councils by prime sponsors. Section

346 (a) (6) of the Act required prime sponsors to provide assurances to the Secretary

of Labor that it wcald create a "youth council." In accord with Section 346 (b),

this youth council was to be given the responsibility of providing "recommendations"

to the prime sponsor's planning council with respect to the planning and operations

of YETP and =IP youth programs." The Act also spelled out the desired composition of the membership of this youth council, including representatives from LEA's,

local vocational /technical education advisory councils, post-secondary educational

institutions, private sector firms, labor unions, the State Employment Security

Agency, local youth serving agencies, members of the community at large, and youths

themselves.
-22--

The rules and regulations governing YETP and YCCIP programs provided further

guidance to prime sponsors.on the formation, membership, and roles and responsibilities of the youth planning councils.31 The rules and regulations noted that

prime sponsors were to appoint members to the youth planning council in consultation with the prime sponsor planning council and that the youth members of the

council were to include youth who were either participating in, or eligible to

participate in, Youth Employment and Training Programs. The rules and regulations

also gave prime sponsors the discretion to either establish a separate youth

planning council or have the youth council be created as a subcommittee of the

32

existing prime sponsor planning council. Finally, the rules and regulations

noted that the youth planning councils were expected "at a minimum (to) make

recommendations to the planning council" with regard to the planning and operation

of all prime sponsor YETP and YCCIP program activities and to review the LEA

agreements developed by the prime sponsor. 33

The instructions to prime sponsors for the preparation of the EYR's suggested

that the roles of youth on the planning council and their involvement in the

administration of YEDPA programs be discussed. It was also suggested that the

prime sponsor assess the contributions of the youth planning council to the planning and design of programs and indicate future training necessary for preparing

youth for more active participation in the deliberations of the planning council.

In reviewing the prime sponsor's End of Year Reports with respect to their

discussions of the composition, roles, and responsibilities of youth planning

councils, the authors developed a questionnaire and coding format for coding particular responses of prime sponsors. A copy of the questionnaire and coding format

used in conducting this review is presented in Appendix B of this report.

33
-23-

As noted in Table II-1 below, slightly more than 90% of the 57 prime

sponsors whose FYR reports were reviewed during the course of the study did mention that they had established a youth planning council during FY 78. The remainder simply failed to provide any mention of the youth planning councils.

Of those mentioning the existence of such a council, the vast majority (90% +)

did provide some discussion as to whether or not youth were represented on the

planning council. In 96% of the cases providing such a discussion (45 of the 47

prime sponsors),youths had been represented on the youth planning council. (See

Table 11-2).

Table II-1: Did Prime Sponsor Successfully

Establish a Youth Planning or

Youth Advisory Council for its YEDPA Programs ? (N=57)

(A) (B)

Response Number Percent

Yes 52 91.2%

No Mention 5 8.8%

Total 57 100.0%

Table 11-2: Did Prime Sponsor Have Youth

Representatives on its Youth

Planning or Advisory Council ? N=57)

(A) (B)

Response Number Percent

Primes with youth representatives 45 82.5%

Primes without youth representatives 2 3.5%

No Mention 10 14.0%

Total 57 100.0%
-24-

Specific information on the extent of youth participation on the youth

planning councils was frequently not provided by prime sponsor. Only 60% of the

prime sponsors provided any relevant information in their EYR's on the extent

of youth involvement on local youth planning councils, and of those that did do

so, the information provided was difficult to interpret.

34 This problem seems

to have been attributable at least in part to a lack of clarity in the reporting

instructions provided by ETA. For example, the prime sponsor was asked to present information on the "ratio of youth council members to Planning Council and

to prime sponsor or subcontractor staff." As might be expected, the types of

information provided by the prime sponsor on this issue varied to a rather substantial degree. A major part of this variation seemed to be due to the lack

of clarity as to the types of information that were actually being sought by the

Employment and Training Administration. Did "youth council members" refer to

youths on the Youth Planning Council or to the total membership of the Youth Planning Council?"

Same prime sponsors simply provided information on the number of members of the

Youth Planning Council, others provided information on the number of members on

the Youth Planning Council and the number of members on the Prime Sponsor Planning

Council, while still others provided a discussion of the number of "Youth" on the

Youth Planning Council, the total membership of the Youth Planning Council, and

the role of youth in Youth Planning Council deliberations. Given the intent of

principle number three of the Youth Planning Charter ("Youth participation should

be emphasized"),the types of information desired from prime sponsors would seam to

pertain to the latter types of discussions; i.e., information pertaining to the number of

"youths" on the Youth Planning Council and the nature of their role in the planning,

design, and monitoring of youth programs at the local level.
-25-

A majority of the prime sponsors (720) did provide same indication of

the types of roles, responsibilities, or activities of the Youth Planning

Councils during FY 78. (See Table 11-3). The discussions, however, were

frequently very brief and lacking in detail. For example, one prime sponsor simple stated that "Youth Planning Council participation is that they,

along with the Manpower Planning Council, must approve all youth plans." The

most frequently mentioned types of activities cited by these prime sponsors

were related to the review of YETP and YCCIP project proposals and to the

presentation of recommendations for funding such projects to the Prime

Sponsor Planning Council. Of the 41 prime sponsors discussing the roles or activities of their Youth Planning Councils, 32 mentioned that they reviewed

all YETP and YCCIP program plans, and 29 indicated that they made formal

recommendations to the prime sponsor for funding specific YETP and YCCIP

program proposals. (See Table 11-4). A few cf the prime sponsors (5 of 41)

mentioned that their Youth Planning Councils had been instrumental in

influencing the actual mix of services provided under YETP and YCCIP programs. As one prime sponsor noted,

"With an added emphasis on training, in spite of a long tradition

of maximum job slots for the maximum number of youth, the local Youth

Advisory Committee recommended the selection of two projects with

strong training components."
Table 11-3:

-26-

Did Prime Sponsor Discuss the Roles,

Responsibilities, or. Activities of the Youth

Planning or Youth Advisory Council ? (TIITgr

(A) (B)

Response Nether Percent

Prime Sponsor did discuss the role of the council 41 71.9%

Prime Sponsor did not discuss the role of the council 16 28.1%

Total 57 100.0%

Only a few of the prime sponsors (3) provided any indication that their

local Youth Planning Councils had been involved in monitoring or evaluating local

YELP and YCCIP programs during FY 78. In addition, very few of the prime sponsors

provided any substantive discussions of the actual overall accomplishments of

their Youth Planning Councils during FY 78. The City of Chicago Prime Sponsor

was one of the few to cite specific accomplishments of its Youth Planning Councils

during FY 78. The general lack of substantive discussions of the activities

of Youth Planning Councils is likely reflective of the absence of active and

meaningful involvement on thex part in most prime sponsor areas. Case studies

of YEDPA implementation during FY 78 typically found that prime sponsor Youth

Planning Councils exerted minimal impacts on the planning, design, and operations

of YETP and YCCIP programs. Typical of the findings of such case studies were

the following:

"In sum, the youth councils did not appear to carry much weight in the

decision making process. Their inclusion in the process was,for the most part,

more of an attempt to fulfill DOL regulations than a real attempt to allow

agencies and individuals serving youth a greater voice in the planning, reviewing,

and selecting of youth employment and training programs."35

"...In some areas...the councils-were no more than rubber stanps to CETA

staff proposals. Short on experience and overwhelmed with demand, councils...

had no time to get on their feet and assert an independent posture the first

time around."

36

v7
Table 11-4:

-27-

Types of Responsibilities that

Prime Sponsors Assigned to the

Youth Planning or Youth Advisory Committee * (N=41)

Review YETP and YCCIP program plans 32

Recommend YETP and YCCIP program proposals

for funding by the prime sponsor 29

Approve program proposals for funding 9

Influence actual design of YETP & YCCIP programs 5

Determine local priorities for the use of

YEDPA resources 4

Meet with members of prime sponsor's planning

council to discuss planning, implementation,

and performance of YEDPA programs 3

Monitor and/or evaluate YETP & YCCIP 3

Recommend changes in YETP and YCCIP based

upon monitoring findings 3

Select significant segments for targatting

YEDPA resources 2

Assist in developing prime sponsor policy on

youth programs

No mention

* Multiple Responses Allowed

1

16
Approximately one-third of the prime sponsors whose EYR's were reviewed

during the study mentioned difficulties in either recruiting youth for membership on the Youth Planning Council or in having them actively participate in

council deliberations. (See Table 11-5). Poor attendance due to a lack of

transportation to council meetings and absence of incentives to participate, a

lack of understanding of CETA program rules and regulations, and an inability

to contribute substantively to council discussions were among the problems most

frequently cited by prime sponsors for the lack of active or meaningful youth

participation in Youth Planning Council Activities. (See Table 11-6).

Table 11-5: Did Prime Sponsor Experience Any

Difficulty in Recruiting Youth to the Council

Or Having Youth Participate in Council Activities? (N:=57)

(A) (B)

Number Of Percent Of

Response Prime Sponsors Prime Sponsors

Yes 18 31.6%

No 19 33.3%

No Mention 20 35.1%

Total 57 100.0%
Table 11-6:

-29-

Ty2T:s of Problems E;:poriencod by

Prime Sponsors in Recruiting Youth to * Council or Having Youth Actively Participate

(N=18)

Attendance problem due to a lack of incentive 7

Attendance problem. due to a lack of transportation 5

Youth not properly oriented to program goals 6

Youth felt ill-prepared and/or intimidated by

members and/or proceedings 5

Council sessions were scheduled at inconvenient

time of day

5

Lack of time to properly recruit and select youth

for participation 3

Youth offered minimal input to council deliberations 3

High turnover of youth representatives 2

Youth were not representative of target groups for

YEDPA programs 2

Inadequate selection process for youth representatives 1

* Multiple Responses Allowed.

A variety of recommended local courses of action for overcoming these problems during FY 79 were outlined by prime sponsors in their Year End Reports.

(See Table 11-7). The provision of more orientation and technical assistance

to youth council members headed the list (11). A few prime sponsors also suggested that the Office of Youth Programs allow local prime sponsors to experiment

with methods other than youth planning councils for obtaining youth inputs into

the planning and design of future YEOPA, programs. Several other prime sponsors

revealed a need for technical assistance from OYP or their regional ETA office

4
-30-

in daveloping methods for involving youth more actively in council activities,

cited the need for guidelines in paying youth for participation on such councils,

or requested regional or national office assistance in securing youth participants through LEA cooperation in appointing members to the council. (See Table 11-8).

Table 11-7: Prime Sponsors Pecornirndations For

Overcominr, Problems of Youth Particieation

On Planniny A)uncil at the Local Level (N=17)

Provide more orientation and training for youth

on council

Appoint youth who are more representative of

target groups

Reconstitute current membership of council to

include more youth

Hold youth council meetings at times convenient

for youth to attend

Pay allowances to youth for time spent attending

youth council meetings

Improve methods for recruiting and selecting youth

representatives

Pay transportation costs incurred by youth in

attending meetings

Create a separate advisory council consisting only

of youth

Encourage other council members to support

youth representatives

11

4

3

2

2

1

1

1

1
Table 11-8:

-31-

Number of Prime Sponsors Providing_

Recommendations for Overccmina Problems of Youth

Participation On Planning Councils (Ng-iTT---

Receive technical assistance from Regional

and national office on methods for involving

youth in council activities

Provide guidelines for allowable

payments to youth representatives on

planning councils

Have regional and national office of ETA

encourage LEA's to appoint youth representatives to council

Allow prime sponsors to experiment with

other mechanisms for obtaining youth

participation

2

1

1

3

Only 10% of the prime sponsors presented any discussion of youth involvement in the administration of YEDPA programs. The North Carolina Balance of

State Prime Sponsor was one of the few prime sponsors that provided a substantive discussion of this issue. This particular prime sponsor cited the use of

college interns and other young adults in administrative and supervisory

positions in YETP and SPEDY programs, the use of young adult participants in

Title II and VI PSE programs as supervisors on YCCIP projects, and the utilizatic#1 of YEDPA participants themselves as team leaders on YCCIP projects and as

peer counselors and tutors in YETP programs. Details on the extent of such

youth involvement, however, were not provided. The prime sponsor sinply noted

that:

"Accomplishment of this goal has been successful with regard to all

Title III CETA youth programs."
-32-

In order to obtain more uniform, complete, and detailed information

on youth participation in the planning, design, and implementation of YEDPA

programs, the instructions for drafting the Year End Report should be substantially revised. Primo sponsors should be required to report specific

information on the structure and composition of their youth planning councils,

including the number of youth members of the planning council. In addition,

the prime sponsors should be required to discuss the actual role and responsibilities of the youth planning council, the number of meetings held during

the year, the actual accomplishments of the youth council as a whole, and the

specific contributions, if any, of the youth members of the council. A discussion of the actual role of youth ("young adults") in administering YEaP and

YCCIP programs at the local level should also be required of prime sponsors

in future Year End Reports on YEDPA program operations.
-33-

Targetting Youth Resources

Youth Planning Charter Goals and End of Year Reporting Instructions

Eligibility criteria for participation in YETP and YCCIP programs were spelled out

by the Congress within the YEDPA legislation.37

To have been eligible for participation

in YETP programs, an individual must have been 16-21 years old inclusive and either

unemployed, underemployed, or in school, and a member of a family whose annualized

current gross annual income was not in.excess of 85% of the appropriate. BLS lower

38

living standard income level for the prime sponsor area. Eligibility for participation

in YCCIP programs was restricted to unemployed 16-19 year o]ds. While the family incomes

of participants were not part of the criteria for participation in YCCIP, the rules and

regulations for YCCIP noted that prime sponsors should give a preference in the selection

of participants to youth from economically disadvantaged families and required them to

identify in their programs the specific procedures that they would utilize to guarantee

that such preference was given.39

The fourth principle of the Youth Planning Charter stated that PRTsourr.lc vheMd

go to those in greatest need."40

The charter emphasized the need for prime sponsors to

make special efforts to serve those most in need within the eligible population and

suggested that community based organizations be used by prime sponsors in administering

YEDPA programs, given the belief by the Congress that they have a comparative advantage

41

in reaching the more economically disadvantaged.

The instructions for drafting the EYR's suggested that prime sponsors focus on

such topics as the target groups selected for participation, the types of methods used

by the prime sponsor to guarantee that YEDPA-related employment and training services

were provided to those youth "most in need", and the effectiveness of such methods.

The instructions for completing this section of the EYR were somewhat vague, particularly

the reference to the "percentage of major groups targetted for assistance to total

participants". It would seem to have been more appropriate for the instructions to have

simply requested prime sponsors to briefly describe the groups selected as signficiant

4,1
-34-

segments, to identify the planned number of enrollments from each significant segment,

and to critically assess the extent to which the characteristics of actual participants

were in conformity with the planned characteristics of partipipants. Prime sponsors

would then be requested to provide an explanation of any substantial deviations in

the planned vs. actual enrollment data on significant segments. Required use of data

appearing in the prime sponsor's 4th quarter 1978 Youth Program Status Summary and the

Quarterly Summary of Youth Characteristics (QSYC) would also have likely been helpful

in providing more useful information with respect to the targetting issue42

Upon comparing the EYR instructions on targetting provided to prime sponsors with the

Youth Planning Charter principle of "Resources should go to those in greatest need",

one readily observes sharp differences between the types of information needed to

provide insights into whether the prime sponsor complied with this Youth Planning Charter

principle and the actual information that ETA suggested prime sponsors provide in their

EYR reports. The Youth Planning Charter stressed that within eligible populatJ.ons

"Every effort must be made to avoid the tendency for 'creaming' participants who are

. most responsive and most likely to succeed."43

In contrast, ETA instructions for preparing the EYR seemed to focus upon planned participation vs. actual participati i of

target groupe and methods used to guarantee delivery of services to those most in need.

As a result of this disparity, very few prime sponsors discussed either "creaming"

avoidance or the targetting of resources upon those "most in need" in their end-of-year

reports.

Tho frequent absence of discussions by prime sponsors on the methods that they employed to guarantee the delivery of YETP and YCCIP services to those youth "most in

need" may very well have been due to the lack of specific local mechanisms for doing

so. Previous reviews of prime sponsor FY'78 YETP and YCCIP plans revealed a frequent

lack of discussions of specific planned efforts to avoid "creaming" of applicants. 44
-35-

Prime Sponsor Discussions of the Identification and Selection of Local. Target Groups

for Participation in YETP and Yam' Programs

Nearly all of the prime sponsor End of Year Reports contained a rlcparate section

that focused upon issues related to targetting YEDPA resources to significant segments.

Wide variations, however, were observed in both the nature and quality of information

found in this section of the report. While more than half of the EYR's provided at

least some indication of which significant segments were chosen to receive YETP or

YCCIP services, little additional detail was provided. (See TableII-9).)nly a small

fraction (15),) of the EYR's presented any information on the socio-economic .or labor

force status of youth in their planning area upon which the choice of'significant

segments could be made. Case studies of local YEDPA program operations have revealed

that most prime sponsors report such data in their plans to the Emr)yment and Training

Administration solely for compliance purposes rather than using them for local decisionmaking purposes. In the absence of such data, however, one has no basis for determining

whether the selection of significant segments or the planned level of service to such

significant segments represents an equitable distribution '45 of services.

Less than 40% of the EYR's indicated the absolute level or relative share of services

that each significant segment was targetted to receive during FY'78. 46

None of the prime

sponsors described the specific criteria that they employed in selecting these significant

segments, and only one prime sponsor provided a discussion of the manner in which the

level of service was decided upon for each target group.

In short, the bulk of the EYR's reviewed during the course of this study failed to

provide sufficiently detailed information that could provide useful insights into the

prime sponsor's YEDPA targetting process. As noted above, however, this paucity of

information may not be primarily due to a deficiency within the EYR, but rather reflective

cf the prime sponsors' fiilure to adhere to what Gregory Wurzburg has termed the Department of Labor planning model. 47

The DOL planning model anticipates that prime sponsors

will conduct a detailed review and analysis of the "universe of need" for youth employment and training services and target their youth resources in a manner based upon the
Tableit-g: Types of Issues Liiscnssed in the Targetting

Section of the P.nd of Year. Reports (N=57)

EYR Reference to

FY'78 YEDPA planning

Grant Application

EYR contained data on

socio-economic or L.F.

characteristics of local

youth population

EYR specified target

groups for delivery

of services

EYR indicated criteria

employed in selecting

target groups

EYR indicated how the

level of service for

each target group was

determined

EYR indicated total number

or percent of planned

participants

EYR indicated number or

percent of planned participants for each target

group

EYR provided data on

total number or percent

of participants actually

served

EYR provided information

on the number or percent

of participants in each

significant segment actually

served in FY'78

EYR provided an explanation

of substantial differences

between total planned and

total actually served

(A) (B) (C)

YETP YCCIP YETP & YCCIP

Only Only Combined

1

3

26

0

1

10

15

13

3

5

0 1

5 5

21 12

0 0

1

8 5

8 7

9 6

2 3

7 3

EYR provided explanation of

substantial differences between

planned vs. actual numbers

served by significant segment 3 2 2

Note: Multiple responses are allowed for each prime sponsor. Thus, column totals may

well exceed total number of prime sponsors.

47
-37-

insights provided by such a study. A number of the EYR's, however, revealed a much

less rigorous targetting process. Some of the year end reports indicated that the

types of data required to target resources on an objective empirical basis were simply

48

lacking. Several of the other EYR's simply stated that significant segments were

selected based upon proposals provided by local service providers49 In some cases,

the EYR's indicated that Youth Planning Counciis selected target groups and determined

50

the level of service to be provided based upon little more than "value judgements ".

Information pertaining to the extent to which prime sponsors were able to meet

their significant segment recruitment goals was provided in approximately only 10% of the

EYR reports submitted by prime sponsors. Only one-fifth of the prime sponsors provided

any comparisons of the planned and actual level of services to significant segments.

Those EYR's that provided such comparisons generally also included a statement as to

why the prime sponsor did or did not achieve their planned levels of service (see Table

11-9).

As noted earlier, the Youth Planning Charter included as one of its ten major

principles the goal of serving those youth "most in need" of employment and training

services. Yet, the findings of our review of the EYR's reveal that only a small fraction

of prime sponsors provided information about the nature of their outreach, intake, and

assessment processes. (See TableII-10),In the absence of information about how young

persons were recruited and selected for participation in the program, it is not possible

to determine if those youth in greatest need were served under YEDPA programs. Even

within those EYR's in which a discussion of methods for the selection of youth for

participation in local ?EWA programs was included, such discussions did not always

focus upon the issue of serving those youth most in need. For example, one report

stated "... When situaGions uxist in which economics, education, work history, and

other applicable factnv us.:'d in determining needs aro similar, participants are selected

based on a first como first servo basis". Another prime sponsor included in its EYR the

d s
Table 11-10:

-38-

Types of Prime Sponsor EYR Di3cussions of

Issues Related to Serving Those Most

in Need and Creaming Avoidance

EYR described recruitment or outreach process

EYR described intake

and assessment process

EYR discussed criteria

employed by the prime

sponsor to identify

those most in need

EYR provided some other

discussion of methods

used in identifying

those most in need

EYR indicated that

CBO's were used for

outreach purposes

EYR indicated that

planned participation

goals were met

(A)

YETP

(B)

YCCIP

(C)

YETP & YCCIP

Combined

5 3 3

4 2 4

2 1 3

1 1

0 0 5

3 1 2
-39-

statements that ... "pre-testing of applicants was not permitted to avoid creaming",,

and "all hiring decisions were made on the basis of eligibility criteria and personal

interviews". The above prime sponsor seemed to be indicating that once an applicant

met a particular set of eligibility criteria youth were selected to participate in YETP

and YCCIP programs in a relatively arbitrary way. In short, it seems that at least

several prime sponsors did not base their decisions on selection for youth for YEDPA

programs on the Youth Planning Charter notion that "within any socioeconomic group,

there is wide variance in potential and need for assistance" and that "creaming should

be avoided". This does not imply that those youth actually selected to participate were

not "deserving" of such an opportunity, but rather that they may not have been "more

in need" of such services than other youth program applicants.

Several other Year End Reports provided some type of discussion within the targetting

section of their report that was related to the issue of serving youth most in need.

These discussions, however, were quitn genera] in nature. For example, one Prime Sponsor

wrote "Utilizing the outreach facilities of youth serving agencies and school guidance

offices throughout the county in addition to its own staff outreach/intake efforts, the

(prime sponsor) has persisted in enrolling the neediest in its YEDPA programs". While

somewhat more informative than the discussions contained in the other EYR's reviewed,

reports that contained statements similar to that above still did not provide a sufficient

amount of information to indicate the extent to which the neediest youth within significant segments were served by local YEDPA programs.
-40-

Information on Significant Segments within the TaretItting Section of the End of Year Reports

In a majority of cases, the EYR's included a review of at least the types of

significant segments that were to be served under their YETP and YCCIP programs.

Table II-11 presents data on the distribution of significant segments targetted for

YEDPA services as reported in the year end reports. The findings appearing in

this table indicate that prime sponsors tended to concentrate their efforts upon

the economically disadvantaged, high-school drop-outs, and racial/ethnic minorities

as suggested by the Congress in the YEDPA Act and by the U.S. Department of Labor

in the rules and regulations for such programs. As noted earlier, however, only

one-tenth of the prime sponsors compared the planned and actual levels of services

to significant segments. Those EYR's that indicated a substantial shortfall in the

total level of service actually provided generally explained that their planned

levels of enrollments were not met because of particular administrative protlems.

Usually such problems focused upon short lead times for program planning and implementation. Among prime sponsors that met their total planned level of service,

several indicated a shortfall in recruiting selected significant segments. Young

veterans seemed especially difficult to recruit. In addition, shortfalls existed

in the number of women that were planned to participate in'selected YCCIP programs.

Generally, the prime sponsors attributed differences in planned vs. actual enrollments for significant segments to the failures of their outreach efforts to locate

a sufficient number of youth within the significant segment. In other cases, particularly with respect to shortfalls of female enrollments in YCCIP, prime sponsors indicated in their EYR's a lack of interest on the part of local women within the eligiblo population to participate in projects that were characterized by traditionally

51

male worksites,

The Youth Planning Charter stated that "Congress has emphasized the use of

community based organizations under the youth programs in the belief that they reach

individuals not likely to be served by more traditional approaches." Only two prime
-41-

sponsors discussed the specific role of CBO's in the participant recruitment and

selection process. Among the EYR's that discussed participant recruitment and

selection, Local Education Agencies or prime sponsors' centralized intake units

were primarily relied upon to recruit and select youth to receive YEDPA services.

To rigorously examine the issue of CBO involvement in the recruitment process and

their relative degree of effectiveness in the recruitment of those youth "most in

need", prime sponsors would have had to provide information (quantitative) on the

sources of recruitment of YETP and YCCIP participants and the characteristics

(demographic, socioeconomic) of participants by recruitment source (prime sponsor,

SESA, LEA, CBO, etc.). To secure such information, the instructions for drafting

the Year End Reports on YETP and YCCIP for FY '79 would have to be designed in a

manner substantially different than those used in preparing the FY '78 reports.

Such revisions will be discussed in greater detail in Section Four of this report.
-42--

Table II-11: Types of Target Groups of Significant Segments identified

by Prime Sponsors Within EYR's

Those Most

(A)

YETP Only

(B)

YCCIP Only

(C)

YETP and YCCIP

Combined

In Need 5 5 3

Economically

Disadvantaged 6 8 1 Only

Economically

Disadvantaged 12 10 7

High School

Dropouts 11 7 9

Minorities 16 10 4

Offenders 7 5 5

Veterans 4 2 1 Women 7 6 3

Unemployed 4 0 0

Underemployed 3 0 1

Handicapped 11 6 3
-43-

Types of. Services Provided to YETP

and YCCIP Program Participants

Prime sponsors receiving funds under the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977 were expected to test out a variety of alternative

approaches to solving the employment problems of youth.52 To facilitate their

efforts in testing out such alternative approaches, prime sponsors were given

a rather substantial degree of discretion in planning the mix of services under

their YETP programs. Knowledge of the relative degree of effectiveness of these

alternative strategies in solving local youth employment problems would be useful

in determining appropriate future directions for the nation's youth employment

and training system.

The act authorized prime sponsors to use their YETP monies to provide a

wide variety of employment and training services to youth, including subsidized

work experience opportunities for youth in a number of community improvement and

social service areas, institutional and on the job training services (including

both general literacy as well as specific occupational training), and a wide

range of transition services, including career counseling, occupational information, job development and job placement services.53 The concept of "career

employment experience" for in-school youth was further developed in the rules

and regulations for YETP and YCCIP prograus.54 Career employment experience was

intended to consist of a combination of employment (work experience or on the job

training) and a required number of transition services for fln-school youth, including

career information, counseling, and skills training. 55

YCCIP programs were expected to consist of labor intensive projects for

youth designed to provide benefits to the community at large. These YCCIP projects were to include neighborhood improvement, public facility maintenance and

restoration, low-income housing rehabilitation and weatherization energy conservation,
-44-

and public land conservation projects. 56

The work experience sites under both

YETP and YCCIP programs were expected to be well supervised and to provide

good work habits and vocational skills to participants.57 The provision of high

quality worksites was itself a major guiding principle under the Youth Planning

Charter.58 Findings of the end of year reports with respect to the quality of

work experience under YETP and YCCIP will be reviewed in more detailed in the

following pages.

In our reveiw of the prime spc,. F 78 Year End Reports, an attempt was

made to identify the types of servi_ ,rded to participants in YET?' programs

and the types of projects that prime sponsors funded with their YCCIP monies.

Efforts were also made to identify problems encountered. by prima sponsors in providing OJT services to YETP participants and problems that surfaced in implementing

YCCIP projects during FY 78. A copy of the questionnaire and coding format that

was used in conducting this review of the Year End Reports is presented in AppendixC

of this study.

Table 11-12 presents information on the types of employment and training

services provided by prime sponsors to YTP participants during FY 78. Employment

and training services wore classified into the following four categories: work

experience, institutional training (general literacy and occupational specific),

on-the-job training, and other transition servides.59 Career employment experience

was not treated as a s4arate services category for purposes of this analysis,

but instead was regarded as a coMbination.of work experience and transition services

for in-school youth. 60

This more limited classification scheme was necessitated

by the fact that prime sponsors frequently only made reference to their "work

experience" activities under YETP. It was not always possible to determine whether
-45-

these work experience activities were part of a carter employment experience

program for in-school youth or whether they were TOM traditional work experience

activities for out of school youth.

Table 11-12: _Types of Services Provided

by Prime Sponsors

YETP Program Partici. 'ants (N=57)

Types of Service

(A (B)

Number Of * Prime Sponsors

Percent Of

Prime Sponsors

Work Experience 56 98.2%

Institutional Training 39 68.4%

On-the-job Training 26 45.6%

Other Transition

Services 56 98.2%

No Mention 1 1.8%

*Note: Multiple responses were allowed since prime sponsors

could have opted to provide services in each of the

above areas. Thus, the column totals will be in excess of the total number of prime sponsors included

in the study.

As revealed in Table 11-12, some information on the types of employment and

training services provided to YETP participants was provided by 56 of the 57 prime

sponsors (98.2%) whose Year End Reports were reviewed during the °purse of this

study. All of these 56 prime sponsors provided work experience opportunities and

same types of transition services to YETP participants. S147htly more than twothirds of the prime ,sponsors offered same type of institutional training services

vej
-46-

to YETP participants, including both general literacy, MD preparation,eand

specific occupational training. Details on the specific types of occupational

training services provided to YETP participants were, however, frequently

not provided by prime sponsors in their FY 78 Year End Reports. Finally,

slightly less than one-half of the prime sponsors (45.6%) offered on-the-job

training services in the private sector to YETP participants. Included in this

categorywereVocational Exploration in the Private Sector programs offered by

prime sponsors.

The Year End Reports of prime sponsors were ierther examined to obtain

information on the types of transition services offered to YETP participants.

As noted in Table 11-12, information on the specific types of '.ransition services

provided to YETP participants was provided by only 31 of the 57 prime sponsors

(54.4%). The most frequently mentioned type of transition service was that of

career/guidance counseling (See Table 11-14). This transition service was cited

by 90.3% of the 31 prime sponsors that provided some information on their

transition services. Between 35% and 42% of these prime sponsors, also indicated

that they provided personal counseling services, job placement services, and labor

market and occupational information to their YETP participants. Training in

job search skills and GED preparation/remedial education services were provided

by 25.8% and 22.6%, respectively, of the prime sponsors.
Table 11-13:

Table 11-14:

-47-

Did Prime Sponsor Provide Ant

Information on the Types of Transition

Services Provided to YETP Participants? (N=57)

Response

(A)

Number Of

Prime. Sponsors

(B)

Percent Of

Prime Sponsors

Yes

No

Total

31

26

57

54.4%

45.6%

100.0%

Types of Transition Services

Provided by Prime Sponsors to

YEIP Program Participants (N=31)

Type Of

Transition Service

(A)

Nurber Of * Prime Sponsors

(B)

Percent OE

Prime Sponsors

Personal Counseling 13 41.9%

Career/Guidance Counseling 28 90.3%

Labor Market and

Occupational Information 11 35.5%

(D Preparation/

Remedial Education 7 22.6%

Job Search Skills 8 25.8%

Job Placement Services 12 38.7%

*Note: Multiple responses were allowed since a prime sponsors

may well have opted to provide an array of transitional

services. Thus, the column totals will be in excess of

the total number of prime sponsors providing information

on their transition services.
-48-

The above findings should be interpreted with a degree of caution. They

are not meant to represent a comprehensive measure of the actual range of transition services provided by prime sponsors under their YETP programs. Some of the

prime sponsors included in this study may actually have provided transition

services to YETP participants, but failed to cite these services in their Year

End Reports. The above listing was simply intended to provide illustrations of

the types of transition services that prime sponsors mentioned they had delivered

to YETP participants in their Year End Reports on YEDPA program operations.

The relatively limited amount of information contained in the EYR's on

the general mix of services under YETP should not be automatically considered a!, a reporting deficiency on the part of the prime sponsors. The instructions for

preparing the End of Year Reports did not specifically request prime sponsors

to provide information on either the planned or actual mix of YETP services

during FY 78. 61

As a result of the absence of such specific requests, Trost

prime sponsors provided only a cursory discussion of their actual mix of services.

This particular shortcoming is most unfortunate given the intendedtlemonstration"

nature of YEDPA programs. Knowledge of the prime sponsors actual and planned mix

of services under YETP, problems in delivering the planned mix of services, and

accomplishments of various components of the mix would have been desirable.

The Year End Reports on YEDPA program operations for FY 79 should be designed

in a manner that would capture such information. The ready availability of planned

and actual data on enrollments in YETP programs by major program activity (i.e.,

career employment experience, transition services, work experience, etc.) should

facilitate the undertaking of this task by prime sponsors.62 Prime sponsors are

required to report such data to the regional offices on a quarterly basis on their

Youth Program Status Summary (YPSS). They YPSS report for the fourth quarter of
-49-

FY 79 should serve as the basis for tLc quantitative portion of the analysis

on program mix under YETP.

Problems in Developing OJT Slots for YETP Participants

Among the types of services that: prime sponsors could have provided to

YETP participants was that of on-the-job trnining. 63 These types of services

have the potentially unique advantaged of providing not only immediate employment opportunities for youth, but also of serving as direct avenues to unsubsidized employment for participants upon their termination from these programs.

As noted earlier, the placement of youth into unsubsidized jobs was one of the

basic objectives of YETP programs. 64

During our review of the FY 78 Year End Reports on YEDPA programs, an attempt

was made to identify problems encountered by prime sponsors in developing OJT

slots for participants in YETP programs. The findings of this review are presented in Tables 11-15 and 11-16 below. Of the 57 prime sponsors whose End of

Year Reports were reviewed during the course of this study, only 12 (or 21%)

mentioned that they had encountered problems in developing OJT positions for

their YETP participants. Information on the magnitude of these difficulties

was not available in the End of Year Reports. A direct measure of the overall

impact of these difficulties upon the delivery of OJT services to YETP participants could have been obtained through a comparison of the planned and actual

number of participants in OJT activities during FY 78. The data necessary for

making such comparisons would have been available on the 4th quarter FY 78 Youth

Program Status Summary forms. As noted previously, however, only.a few prime

sponsors either attached these forms to their Year End Reports or discussed the

findings of such reports in any substantive way in their End of Year Reports.

6
Table 11-15:

-50-

Did Prime Sponsor Experience

Any Problems in Obtaining OJT

Services for YETP Participants? (N=57)

(A) (B)

Number OF Percent Of

Response Prime Sponsors Prime Sponsors

Yes 12 21.0%

No/No Mention 45 79.0%

Total 57 100.0%

Only 7 of the 12 prime sponsors noting problems in developing OJT positions

for YETP participants provided descriptions of the specific types of problems

that they had actually encountered. The types of problems cited by these prime

sponsors are noted in Table 11-16. One of the two most frequently cited problems was the young age of many program participants (16 and under) and the general

lack of prior work experience of these youth, factors apparently inhibiting the

prime sponsor's ability to negotiate OJT contracts with private sector firms.

The other frequently-cited problem involved a lack of prime sponsor staff experienced in developing OJT contracts with private sector firms. Other problems

cited by these prime sponsors were the lack of interest of youth in OJT positions,

transportation problems of youth, a lack of incentive for private sector firms

to participate in OJT programs, and a lack of "high quality" OJT slots in local

firms.
Table 11-16:

-51-

'ma of Problems Encountered In

Obtaining OJT Services for YCTP Participants

(N.0.2)

Type of Problem

(A) (B)

Number Of * Prime Sponsors

Limited previous

work experience

of youth 3

Lack of motivation

on part of youth 2

Transportation

problems 1

Lack of OJT

development

capability on part

of prime sponsors

staff 3

Limited incentive for

private sector involvement 1

Difficulty in obtaining

high quality OJT slots 1

No specific problem

mentioned 5

Percent Of

Prime Sponsor

25.0%

17.0%

8.3%

25.0%

8.3%

8.3%

41.6%

*Note: Multiple xesponses were allowed to this question. As a result, the total number of responses exceeds the number

of prime sponsors citing problems in negotiating OJT slots

for YETP participants.
-52-

It was not possible to obtain information from the End of Year R'2port,.

on the actual extent of prime sponsor efforts to negotiate OJT contrasts

private sector firms. For example, one could not determine whether subszt:,Ne

marketing efforts had actually been undertaken by prime sponsors or gain

into the factors influencing the relative success or failure of these efforts.

The problmes in negotiating OJT slots were apparently perceived by several prime

sponsors as being particularly burdensome since they revealed that they had

dropped OJT activities altogether in their FY 79 YETP programs. It would seem

desirable for prime sponsors to provide more specific information on the nature

and extent of their OJT activities under YETP in their FY 79 Year End Reports.

Included in such a review should be a brief statement of the linkages, if any,

between the OJT efforts under YETP and their Title II B programs and the extent

of transfers of YETP participants into OJT activities under Title II B, particularly transfers of out of school youth.

Implementation of YCCIP Projects During FY 78

YCCIP program monies were intended to be used by prime sponsors to create

subsidized employment opportunities for unemployed 16-19 year olds in a variety

of community and neighborhood improvement projects.65 These projects were expected to be labor intensive in nature; however, prime sponsors were also required to design these projects in a manner that could provide well supervised

66

work experience opportunities for participants. During our review of the FY 78

Year End Reports of prime sponsors, an effort was made to identify the types of

projects that prime sponsors had funded with their YCCIP monies and to note problems that prime sponsors encountered in implementing their YCCIP projects during

ele first year of YEDPA operations. The findings of this review are presented

in Table 11-17 through 11-20 below.
Table I -17:

-53-

Did the Prime Sponsor Provide Any

Information on the TyErs of YCCTP Projects

That It. Funded During FY 78? (N=57)

(A) (B)

Number Of

Response Prime Sponsors

Yes 43

No/Not Applicble 14

Total 57

Percent Of

Prime Sponsors

75.4%

23.67

100.0Z

As revealed by the data appearing in Table 11-17, 43 of the 57 prime sponsors

whose Year End Report were reveiwed during the course of this study provided

some information on the Hypes of YCCIP projects that they had funded during FY

78.

67

Information on the types of YCCIP projects funded by these 43 prime sponsors

is presented in Table 11-18. The type of YCCIP project administered most frequently

by these prime sponsors during FY 78 was that of weatherization and repair of

low-income housing. Thirty-three of the 47 prime sponsors for whom YCCIP project

information was available administered projects in this area. Neighborhood

improvement projects (e.g., remodeling community halls, neighborhood park cleanup)

represented the second most frequently administered category of YCCIP projects.

Projects of this type were operated in approximately 42% of the prime sponsor

areas. Projects involving the restoration and conservation of public lands (e.g.,

bicycle path construction, waterway clean-up, public park restoration) were funded

in slightly mize than one-third of the prime sponsor areas while public facility

improvement and arts recreation projects were administered by 27.9% and 23.3% of

the prime sponsors, respectively. Only 1 out of 7 prime sponsors (14.0%) indicated

that they had funded projects in the energy conservation area, and fewer than 10%
-54-

Table 11-13: Types of YCCIp Projects Funded

.ay Prime Sponsors During FY 78 (N=43)

(A) (B)

Number Of Percent Of

Type of Project Prime Sponsors Prime Sponsors

Improvement of

Public Facilities

Maintenance of

Public Buildings

12 27.9%

4 9.3%

Neighborhood

Improvement 18 41.9%

Weatherization and

Repair of Low-Income

Housing 33 76.7%

Energy Conservation 6 14.0%

Restoration and

Conservation of

Public Lands 15 34.9%

Recreation and Arts 10 23.3%

*Note: Multiple responses were allowed since prime sponsors may

have funded YCCIP projects in more than one public service

area. As a result, column totals will be In excess of the

total number of piime sponsors (43) that provided information on their YCCIP projects.
-55-

of the prime sponsors mentioned that they had administered YCCIP projects

involving maintenance of public buildings.

Information on the share of CIP funding devoted to each of the above

project areas was not available in the Year End Reports. 68

Thus, one cannot

determine whether the frequency with which a project was administered by these

prime sponsors was strongly correlated with the share of overall YCCIP funding

accounted for by that project type. The information on YCCIP project type

presented in Table 11-18 does, however, appear to provide some support for the

notion that YCCIP program participants were employed on projects that differed

in substantive ways from those previously administered under Title I youth work

experience and summer youth programs. The greater diversity of YCCIP projects,

thus, should have provided youth participants with exposure to a more diversified

set of job opportunities involving a broader range of skills than heretofore

available under CETA youth work experience programs.

69

It should be noted, however, that this diversification did not occur in all prime sponsor areas to the

same degree. A few prime sponsors were quite dissatisfied with the work experience slots on their YCCIP projects.

As noted above, the Year. End Reports of prime spongors were also reviewed

to determine whether they had encountered particular types of problems in

implementing their YCCIP projects. As revealed in Table 11-19 below, 34 of the

57 prime sponsors (nearly 60%) did mention one or more problems in getting their

YCCIP projects off the ground. The specific types of problems that they had

encountered in doing so are presented in Table 11-20 on the following page.

6G
Table 11-19:

-56--

Did Prime Sponsor Mention An/

Problems in Implementing its YCCIP Projects?

(N=57)

Response Prime Sponsors Prime Sponsors

Yes 34 59.6%

No 23 40.4%

Total 57 100.0%

A lack of sufficient lead time for planning YCCIP programs was cited

most frequently by prime sponsors. Twenty-one of the 34 prime sponsors (or

61.8%) citing YCCIP implementation problems mentioned the lack of adequate

time for planning as the chief obstacle to speedy implementation. The lack of

sufficient lead time also adversely affected the quality of YCCIP projects

administered in several prime sponsor areas. Delays in obtaining YCCIP plan

approval and weather problems were each cited by 1 out of 6 prime sponsors.

Weather problems in northern states, particularly during the winter of 1978,

delayed the introduction of projects involving outside construction work.

Other problems cited by two or more prime sponsors were inadequate technical

assistance from the regional office of ETA, difficulties in recruiting eligible

youth, failure of cooperating agencies to provide materials needed by the

projects and the limited presence of community-based organizations in the prime

sponsor's planning area with a capability of administering YCCIP projects.

70

The latter problem required additional time to be devoted to securing acceptable

project proposals from other agencies and delayed the implementation of YCCIP

program activities several months into calendar year 1978.
Table 11-20:

Type of

Problem

-57-

Problems Encountered b Primp

Sponsors inTmplpnenting vccir

Projects durilg_EY 78 (N=34)

(A) (B)

Number of

Prime Sponsors*

% of

Prime Sponsors

Citing Problem

Insufficient Lead

Time for Planning 21 61.8%

Inadequate technical

assistance 3 8.8%

Limited Availability

of CBO's and neighborhood organizations 2 5.9%

Delays in obtaining

YCCIP plan approval 6 17.6%

Weather problems 6 17.6%

Difficulties in recrliting qualified

staff 2.9%

Difficulties in recruiting eligible

youth 3 8.8%

Transportation

Problems 1 2.9%

Limited material

availability from

cooperating agencies 2 5.9%

*Note: Multiple responses were allowed; thus,

the column totals will exceed the number of prime sponsors citing problems

in implementing their YCCIP projects.

68
-58--

Given the relative uniqueness of a number of the YCCIP projects

administered by prime sponsors during FY 78, it would have been desirable

for them to have discussed their views of the relative advantages and disadvantages of this program approach, particularly with respect to resolving the

employment problems of out of school youth. 71 A number of these projects

appeared to have succeeded In providing participants with both a range of

crafts-related skills and effective supervision by experi.cnced craftsmen in

the field. A more substantive discussion of prime sponsors' comparative experiences with YCCIP and YETP programs could possible have provided greater insights

into proper directions for future youth employment and training policy at the

national level. 72 The instructions for preparing the FY 79 Year End Reports on

YEDPA programs should be structured in a manner that would more readily capture

information on these issues of relative program effectiveness.

The Ouality of Work Experience for Participants in YETP and YCCIP.Proprams

The YETP and YCCIP programs administered by CETA prime sponsors during the

first year of operations under YEDPA were expected to contain substantial work

experience components. Prime sponsors were, however, requested to undertake

efforts to develop work experience opportunities for YEDPA participants that

would be of "higher quality" than those previously provided to youth under

Title I and SPEDY work experience programs. The Youth Planning Charter placed

major emphasis on the need for improving the quality of work experience opportunities for YEDPA participants. The second principle of the Charter noted that

"The content and quality of work experience must be improved. "73

The YEDPA legislation also contained a number of provisions related to work

experience activities of prima sponsors under YCCIP and YETP programs. For

example, Section 335 0) (3) of the Act required YCCIP project applicants to
-59-

provide assurances that thc.ir YCCIP projects would contain an "adequate number

of supervisors who would possess the skills required on the project and be able

to provide skills instruction to youth enrolled in such projects. More specific

criteria as to what constituted an "adequate" number of supervisors were spelled

out in the rules and regulations for YCC.P programs .7 In accord with Section

336 (b) (2), the prime sponsor's YoCIP proposal was to contain a description of

the types of training and skill development services that would be provided to

enrollees and to indicate how the YCCIP activitir' would fe tied to school

programs, including procedures for awarding academic credit to YCCIP participants.

Section 346 (a) (7) required prime sponsors to provide assurances in their YETP

plans that they would develop appropriate mechanisms to allow youth participants

to acquire job skills and basic educational services while enrolled in YETP

activities. Finally, Section 346 (c) (1) required the LEA agreements developed

by prime sponsors to contain assurances that youth serve' under the agreemcnt.

would be provided "meaningful u ,k experience" that would enhance their capabilities to make future career choices and equip them with the skills necessary to

obtain unsubsidized employment upon termination from the program.

The instructions for preparing the Year End Reports suggested that prime

sponsors provide a discussion of the effects of their efforts to increase the

overall quality of work experience opportunities, including improved supervision,

the awarding of academic credit, increased counseling, rh provision of occupational information, and job restructuring. A summary of the findings of our

review of the Year End Reports with respect to the issue of work experience quality

is presented below. 75
-6UNearly all of the 57 prime sponsors (85-90%) whose Year End Reports were

reviewed during the course of the study provided some discussion of the "work

experience quality" issue. 76

As was true of most other issues, the length and

quality of these discussions varied rather substantially. The sections of the

Year End Report related to work experience quality ranged in length from seven lines of text to nine full pages, with a median length of one to two pages.

Some of these discussions were quite informative. The City of Chicago Prime

Sponsor provided one of the most detailed and informative discussions of its

efforts to provide YETP and YCCIP participants with high quality work experience

opportunities in well supervised and structured work settings.

The discussions indicated that a wide variety of efforts were undertaken

by prime sponsors during FY 78 to up-grade the quality of their youth work

experience pctivitips. Among the efforts most frequently mentioned by prime

sponsors in their EYR's were those related to the provision of high quality and

more effective supervision, the greater availability of personalized vocational

and guidance counseling, the provision of occupational information to youth,

greater diversity in types of worksites made available to youth, the development

of job sites more directly related to the career or educational interests of

participants, the design of more effective skill acquisition components for their

work experience activities, and the awarding of academic credit for work experience under these programs. Several of the prime sponsors also noted that the

systems which they had developed for rating YETP and YCCIP program proposals

placed major emphasis upon the management capability of service delivery agents,

the quality and experience of the supervisors that would be assigned to youth

enrolled in such projects, and the ability of such agencies to provide effective
.-61-

counseling and occupational information tc participants. Among the other

efforts undertaken by prime sponsors to upgrade the quality of work experience

were experimentation with job restructuring in selected agencies, development

of formal procedures for the training of jobsite supervisors, and obtaining

more direct involvement of the private sector, including their participation

in Vocational Exploration Programs under YETP.

A few of the prime sponsors noted that changes in the nature of work

experience activities under YEDPA were needed to produce desirable short-term

outcomes for participants. Effective supervision, particularly on YCCIP projects,

was felt to be essential for the development of good work habits by project

enrollees. Tangible skills needed to be taught to participants to have them

feel that they were learning something useful. Several prime sponsors noted

that the YCCIP project approach was particularly use'ul in developing meaningful work experience opportunities. These prime sponsors developed specific

"identifiable outcomes" for their projects and then provided specific tasks

for youth to undertake to produce those outcomes. When skills training occurred

on the job site and when tasks were related to observable program outcomes

(weatherization of a home, restoration of a community facility), youth felt that

they were learning something useful and truly contributing to community improvement. The skills content and task orientation of the work experience jobs

also appeared to influence the commitment of youth to the program. As one prime

sponsor commented,

"When our work experience projects were content oriented and training

was skill specific, youth tended to stay on the job longer."

While not all of the efforts to increase the quality and meaningfulness of

'work experience opportunities were equally successful, the vast majority of the

prime sponsors commenting on this issue claimed that work experience activities

under YEDPA were strengthened as a result of their efforts. The "efferts" of
-62-

of such efforts were asserted to exist in a rather wide variety of forms.

Prime Sponsors cited such favorable developments as increased private sector

involvement in the provision of work experience opportunities (Vocational

Exploration in the Private Sector), increased diversity in worksites, improNA

punctuality and attendance of participants, overall improvement in participant

work habits, the awarding of academic credit for work experience, the existence

of low participant/supervisor ratios, increased provision of counseling, and

increases in either the positive termination rate or the number of terminees

v#

entering unsubsidized employment upon termination. 77 Overall, the prime sponsors

argued that substantive improvements in the quality of work experience for youth

had taken place under YEDPA during its first year of operations. Among the

comments made by prime sponsors on the success of their efforts to upgrade the

quality of work experience were the following:

"YETP provided more meaningful, career oriented work experince

opportunities to youth. It completely avoided the purely menial

types of work experience previously available, such as janitorial

services."

"The content and quality of work experience has improved. Prior

to YETP, slots were in clerical, janitorial, and other common

areas. Since YETP's implementation, slots are now available in

a wide variety of areas."

"The prevalent cynicism that accompanied so much of Title I

'maintenance' programs in the past was seldom evident at YETP

or YCCIP work sites."

The assertions of the prime sponsors with respect to the success of their

efforts in increasing the quality of work experience did suffer from an absence

of supporting evidence. Most of the prime sponsors failed to provide any discussion of the steps that they had taken to monitor or evaluate the quality of their

work sites in order to obtain evidence of such qualitative improvements.

Approximately only 40% of the prime sponsors mentioned some type of activity

"0tJ
that they had undertaken to obtain information on work site quality. The

remainder simply stated that the quality of their work experience activities

had improved without providing any documentation for such assertions. For

example, a number of the prime sponsors would simply make the following

types of statements:

"The goals stated above were successful. The prime sponsor's youth

work experience programs were the most successful of all activities."

"Generally, our goals with respect to work experience were achieved."

"The prime sponsor feels these efforts in developing new and meaningful

work experience were successful."

"We have considered the program to be a success."

"We have found that increased counseling and career information

worked well."

Those prime sponsors mentioning one or more efforts to monitor work site

quality engaged in a variety of activities. The bulk of these activities consisted

of interviews by prime sponsor staff with YETP and YCCIP program participants

and job site supervisors although a few prime sponsors also hired outside contractors

to conduct such interviews. 78 Other methods used by prime sponsors to monitor

work experience quality included an analysis of monitoring reports compiled by

youth coordinators, reviews of the tardiness and absenteeism behavior of partici

pants, and an examination of the termination status of participants, particularly

whether they had or had not obtained unsubsidized employment.

As noted above, a number of prime sponsors did admit that they had experienced

problems in improving the quality of work experience opportunities. Among the

problems cited most frequently by prime sponsors were those related to diversifying

the work experience opportunities available to youth, developing work sites for

participants that were closely related to their career interests or school programs,

obtaining qualified supervisors from subconttacting agencies, and obtaining

'1
-64-

academic credit for the work experiences of YETP and YCCIP program participants.

Prime sponsors in rural areas frequently experienced difficulties in developing

worksi.tes for youth that were within reasonable commuting distances from their

schools and homes and that contained any substantive skill component. To overcome such problems, a few prime sponsors developed in-school work experience

programs with LEA's that attempted to simulate job settings that students would

encounter in the private sector.

Finally, only a small fraction of the prime sponsors (approximately 20%)

provided any comparisons of the quality and effectiveness of YEDPA work experience

activities with those previously provided under Title I or SPEDY. More detailed

comparisons of this type would have been helpful in assessing the comparative

advantages of YETP programs. Most of the prime sponsors providing comparisons of

the quality of their YEDPA work experience activities with those under previous

Title I youth programs claimed that the YEDPA-related work experience at.tivities

were of higher overall quality. 79

Typical of such comments were the following:

"Our Title I in-school ,,nd SPEDY programs were low skill/no skill programs

that provided leolited work experience and Lad no long term effect on

youth employability. Our YEDPA work experience opportunities were more

challenging to participants and developed marketable skills."

"YETP provided the potential for a higher quality work experience than

CETA youth programs in the past because of the encouragement to provide training and career information, guidance and counseling services."

The instructions for the preparation of the FY 79 Year End Reports on YEDPA

program operations should emphasize the need for more substantive analyslc

of the work experience quality issues by prime sponsors in order to approprilixiy

assess the overall performance of YEDPA programs at the local as well as the

;.ational 1r r Tic instructions should be designe6 to capture information on pr' qe

sponsors' continuing efforts to upgrade the quality of local work experience

opportunities for YETP and YCCIP participants. 80

Prime sponsors should also be
-65-

asked to describe their efforts to monitor the quality of their work experience

job sites and to summarize the finding of those monitoring efforts. Comparisons

of the quality of work experience activities under YETP, YCCIP,and Title II B

programs should also be presented in the Year End Report. Finally, it would

seem desirable for prime sponsors to provide Information on the extent to which

their experiences under YETP and ?CCU programs have been used to Al.ter the

nature or mix of their services to youth under Title II B and summ,_,r 5.00th

programs (SYEP).

Service Delivery Agents

For Prime Sponsors' YETP Programs

This section of the report is focused on the selection of service delivery

agents for YETP programs of prime sponsors during FY 78. Particular emphasis

is placed on the role of CBO's and private for profit firms in delivering YET?

81

services. The role of local educational agencies in delivering employment and

training services to youth will be discussed at greater length in a later section

of the report devoted ,to institutional linkages.

The eighth principle of the Youth Planning Charter was related to the issues

of the selection of service delivery agents for prime sponsors' 7EDPA programs.

The principle stated that "Emphasis must be placed on approaches and delivery

agents of demonstrated merit."

82

The Charter noted that the ultimate success of

YEDPA programs would be .in.auenced to a substantial degree by the effectivness of

the agencies selected to deliver YEDPA services.

The Charter also indicated that "Community-based organizations can and should

83

be funded where they can do the job." The need for prime sponsors to undertake

substantive monitoring and evaluation activities to determine the actual effectiveness of programs operated by various local service delivery agents was also

emphasized in the Youth Planning Charter.

7/6
-66-

The YEDPA Act also contained several provisions related to the selection

of service delivery agents at the local level. Section 342 (b) of the Act

indicated that prime sponsors were expected to seek out community-based organizations (CBO's) and private non-profit agencies to administer YETP programs

before deciding to administer such programs by themselves. Section 343 (e) of

the Act required prime sponsors to give "special consideration" in the selection

of YETP delivery agents to 'CBO's. It should be noted that CBO's as defined in

the At constituted a rather broad grouping of organizations, including not only

such traditional community-based organizations as the Urban League, OIC, and SER,

but also union-related organizations and non-profit employer-based organizations,

such as local Chambers of. Commerce. The rules and regulations for YEDPA noted

that YCCIP projects were also expected to be administered in large part by

neighborhood and community-based organizations: 84

Prime sponsors were supposed to

establish formal criteria for the ranking of project applicants. The proposals

of CBO's were to be given first consideration in the review process. Only after

all CBO proposals had been reviewed were YCCIP proposals of other agencies to

be entertained by the prime sponsor.

The instructions for preparing the section of the End of Year Report on service delivery agents were rather abbreviated. Prime sponsors were not specifically asked to describe either the methods that they had used to solicit proposals

from CBO's or the criteria that they had established for reviewing YETP or YCCIP

project proposals. Nor were prime sponsors asked to provide specific information

on the actual extent of involvement of CBO's in the delivery of employment and

training services to youth under YETP or YCCIP. Instead, prime sponsors were simply

asked to discuss the impact that CBO's had on the ability of the prime sponsor

to successfully serve target groups and to describe the role of other services

85

delivery agents and their "impact" on local YEDPA "goals." The inetructions were
-67-

not clear as to which "goals" these other service delivery agents were expected

to contribute. This particular emission is significant given that local goals

may have existed for each of the ten principles contained in the Youth Planning

Charter.

During our review of the Year End Reports, an attempt was made to identify

the service delivery agents for each prime sponsor's YETP programs. Service

delivery agents were classified into one of the following five mutually exclusive

categories: community and neighborhood based organizations, LEA's prime sponsors,

other state or local government agencies, and private for-profit companies. The

definitions of neighborhood and community-based organizations appearing in the

rules and regulations for YETP and YCCIP programs were utilized in classifying

YETP service delivery agents. The findings of this review are summarized in

Tables 11-21 and 11-22 below.

As revealed in Table 11-21, of the 57 prime sponsors whose EYR reports were

examined during the course of the study, 56 provided some information on the

service delivery agents that they had selected to operate their FY 78 YETP

programs. The information provided by prime sponsors was of uneven quality.

Approximately only one-fourth of the Year End Reports provided a detailed descrip86

tion of their service delivery agents under YETP.

Table 11-21: Did Prime Sponsor's End of Year.

Report Provide Any Information on the

Operations of YETP Programs? (N=57)

(A) (B)

Number Of Percent Of

Response Prime Sponsors Prime Sponsors

Yes 56 98.2%

No 1 1.8%

Total 57 100.0%
--68-

Findings on the types-of agencies operating prime sponsors' YETP programs

during FY 78 are presented in Table 11-22 on the following page. Local educational

agencies (LEA's) were most frequently involved in the delivery of employment

and training services to youth under prime sponsors' YETP programs. LEA's

operated YETP programs in 48 of the 56 prime sponsor areas (85.7%) for whom

information on, program operators was available. While all prime sponsors

administering YETP programs were required to negotiate an agreement with a Local

Educational Agency during FY 78, not all of these prime sponsors had succeeded

in doing so. In addition, a few prime sponsors negotiated LEA agreements of

a non-financial nature. Under these non-financial agreements, LEA's are not

actively involved in the operation of YETP program activities, such as career

employment experience or institutional training.

Prime sponsors appear to have succeeded fairly well in obtaining CB0 involvement in the delivery of employment and training services to youth under YETI'

programs. Community-based organizations (CBO's) were involved to some extent

in the delivery of YETP employment and training services to youths in appro-imately

three-fourths of the prime sponsors (75.%). In addition, in a few of the

remaining prime sponsors, CBO's were involved in administering YCCIP projects.

Several prime sponsors allocated all of their YETP movie" to LEA's for the delivery

of service to in-school youth while funding CBO's for the development of YCCIP

projects to serve out-of-school youth.

The degree of CB0 involvement in the delivery of YETP services to youths

proved to be far more difficult to ascertain during the review of the EYR's. An

attempt was made to determine the actual share (other than zero) of a prime

sponsor's YETP budget that was allocated to CBO's; however, sufficient data were

available in only six cases to do so. Among these six prime sponsors, the share

of YETP funds accounted for by CBO's ranged from 33% to 100%. Thus, while the

information appearing in the prime sponsors' EYR's rreal a frec.uent
Table 11-22: Types of Agencies Operating

FY 78 YETP Programs (N,-.56)

Type of Agency

Community Eased

Organization

Local Educational

Agency

Private Sector for

Profit Firm

Prime Sponsor.

Other Government

Agency

(A) 03)

Number of % of

Prime Sponsors* Prime Sponsors

42 75.0%

48 85.7%

16 28.6%

8 14.3%

26 46.4%

*Note: Multiple responses were allowed since

a prime sponsor may have selected a

number of different agencies to deliver services under its YETP program.

Thus, column totals can well be expected to exceed the total number of

prime sponsors.

bo
-70-

involvement by CBO's in the delivery of YETP services, the actual degree of

such involvement was not capable of being estimated in the vast majority of cases.

The inability to estimate the degree of CB0 involvement was primarily due to

a lack of specificity in the prime spcasors' descriptions of their YETP service

deliverers. For example, prime sponsors often described the nature of CBO

involvement in the following manner:

"Several community organizations have conducted projects under the

YETP program."

"A CB0 was rated number one on the funding list and was given the

largest share of YETP funding."

Nearly one third of the 57 prime sponsors indicated within their year

end reports problems in obtaining CB0 or private for profit sector involvement

in their YETP programs (Table 11-23). Findings provided in Table 11-24 reveal

that the limited number of CBO's within the local prime sponsor planning area

was the major barrier to those prime sponsors that indicated a problem in

obtaining CB0 involvement. Only one prime sponsor indicated that poor performance

by local CBO's in previously operated CETA programs was an obstacle to obtaining

CBO involvement in it's YETP program,

The major problem in obtaining private for profit sector involvement in local

YETP efforts centered upon either a lack of staff to develop such linkages or

staff that were inexperienced in dealing with private sector busi..-:ess establishments

on such issues as contract development, monitoring,etc.. Three prime sponsors

reported a reluctance on the part of the local private for profit sector to

become involved in YETP programs. Limited pre-YEDPA work experience local

youth as well as a limited availability of OJT slots with substantive skill content

were also problematic in involving private sector firms in the YETP program.

Finally, three prime sponsors indicated that insufficient planning time hindered

their efforts to involve CBO's as well as the private recto: in local YETP efforts.
Table 11-23:

-71-

Did Prime Sponsor Cite Problems in

Obtaining CB0 or Private for Profit Sector

Involvement in its YETP Programs? (N=57)

(A) (B)

Number Of Percent Of

Response Prime Sponsors Prime Sponsors

Yes 18 31.6%

No/No mention 39 68.9%

Total 57 100.0%

As noted above, the instructions for drafting the Year End Report asked

prime sponsors to discuss the effects of CBO's on the recruitment of various

target groups. Less than one-half of tLe prime sponsors, however, discussed

the effects of CBO involvement in either YETP or YCCIP programs upon the recruitment of target groups. Those that provided such a discussion typically did so

in a very general way, indicating that CBO's assisted in the determination

of target groups for the delivery of services, helped assess the needs of youth

from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and successfully recruited youths

in specific significant segments, such as members of racial/ethnic minority

groups, offenders, high school dropouts and low achievers. For example, prime

sponsors tended to describe the effects of CBO's on target group recruitment in

the following general manner:

"The utilization of the above named CBO's and other organizations

proved effective as delivery agents."

"Community-based organizations proved to have a positive impact

on YETP programs z1 providing transitional services and employment

and training to carget groups."

The prime sponsors generally failed to relate their discussions to previous

sections of the EYR focused upon the designation of target groups or to present

data from the Youth Program Status Summary on planned and actunl enrollments of

significant segments. The instructions for future EYR reports should request

prime sponsors to discuss their success in a quantitative manner in recruiting

8(1
Table 11-24:

Type of Problem

Insufficient

Planning Time

Limited Number

of CBO's in

Local Planning

Prep

r:evicris

..,,ncv of

Inadequate Number

or Inexperience

of Prime Sponsor

Staff in Dealing

wial Private

Sector

Reluctance of

Private Sect r to

Become Involved

with YETP

Limited Work

Experience of

Youth

Limited Availability of OJT

Slots with

Substantive

Skill Content

-72-

Typei of Problems Encountered by

Prime Sponsors in obtaining. rf30

or Pivate Sector Involvement

in its ?MT Programs (N=17)

(A)

Number of

Prime Sponsors*

(B)

% of

Prime Sponsors

3 17.6%

5 29.4%

1 5.9%

5 29.4%

3 17.6%

1 5.9%

1 5.9%

*Note: Multiple responses were allowed; thus,

the column totals will exceed the

total number of prime sponsors citing

problems in obtaining CBO or private

sector involvement with YETP programs.
4 -73-

those target grows for participation in YETP and YCCIP programs during FY 79.

Among the other types of service delivery agents discussed in this

section of the EYR were LEA's, private for-profit companies, and other state

and local government agencies, including State Employment Security Agencies.

In only 30% of the EYR's did prime sponsors provide any discussion of the specific

advantages of involving such agencies in the delivery of YETP and YCCIP services.

Among the types of advantages mentioned by prime sponsors were the ability of

public sector agencies to assist in the attainment of minimum overhead cost

objectives and to successfully recruit selected target groups, such as the

imndicapped and youth offenders. The role of the private sector in contributing

to higher numbers of unsubsidized placements was also noted by several prime

sponsors.

87

To obtain greater insights into the roles of various service delivery

agents in achieving local YEDPA goals, the instructions for FY 79 Year End

Reports should request prime sponsors to describe in more detail the types of

service delivery agencies that they selected to administer their YETP and YCCIP

programs, to provide a brief rationale for their original selection (perceived

ability to contribute to specific local YEDPA goals"), and to assess in a

qualitative manner their actual performance in achieving those goals during FY 79.
-74-

KNOWLEOCE_DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES OF PRIME SPW:SORS:

INNOVATIVE Oft EXEMPLARY PROGRAM DESIGN

The Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977 was primarily

intended to be a nationwide "demonstration projects" act that would provide

funding for a variety of alternative employment and training programs for youths

particularly economically disadvantaged youas. 88

Findings of.the relative

effectiveness of these alternative strategies in combatting the employment

problems of youth would be used in part to guide the future direction of the

nation's youth employment and training system. To guarantee that findings on

the effectiveness of these alternative program approaches were made available

to local and national policy makerg. the programs administered under YEDPA

would have to be carefully evaluated at the local and national level. 89

The Planning Charter for the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects

Act stated unequivocally in its first general principle that. "Khowledge deveiopment is a primary aim of the new youth programs.u90

The Charter went on to

explain that the primary thrust behind this principle was that of assessing the

performance of innovative programming efforts "as rigorously as possible" through

the use of pre-determined "hypotheses and questions" and an accompanying appropriate "evaluation methodology."91

This mandate was couched in terms that

generally characterize the broad field of evaluative social science research. 92

The Charter, thus, strongly suggested that grime sponsors give serious consideration to undertaking knowledge development activities. These activities

could broadly be viewed as.systematic inquiries into the nature and causes of

the employment problems of local CETA eligible youth as well as the effectiveness of particular youth program activities or program components in improving

the immediate and longer-term employability of economically disadvantaged youth.
-75-

The instructions from the ETA Regional Offiocs to prime sponsors for

completion of the knowledge development section provided a rather minimal

amount of direction for systematically recounting what was initially intended

to be an orderly and rigorous process of inquiry. The instructions suggested

that the prime sponsor "consider" and "discuss" the following three general

topics:

"unique and effective program designs developed under YEDPA";

- "evaluation methodology used";

"analysis of findings."93

In our reviel, of the n..-ime sponsors' Year End Reports, an attempt was made

to identify the specific types of local knowledge development activities undertaken by prime sponsors during FY 78. 94

The End of Year Reports were first

reviewed to determine whether the prime sponsor mentioned any exemplary or

innovative programs that they had implemented during the first year of YEDPA

operations. These programs were then recorded as a type of knowledge development activity whether or not they were accompanied by a formal evaluation

effort to assess their actual performance. Secondly, problems encountered by

prime sponsors in designing exemplary or innovative programs ,ere also identified. Thirdly, the End of Year Report was reviewed to determine whether the

prime sponsor had undertaken an" evaluation activities during FY 78 and, if it

had done so, to list the specific types of evaluation activities in which it

had engaged.

The remainder of this sub-section of the report will be devoted to a discussior. of both the types of innovative or exemplary program activities that

prime sponsors had-undertaken during FY 78 and the problems that they experienced in trying to undertake any type of knowledge development activity during

that year. The findings of the review of the Year End Reports, with respect to

BC
-76-

formal evaluation efforts of prime sponsors, will be presented in a later

sub-section of this report on monitoritr, and vvaluation activities.

Table 11-25 summarizes the findings of our review of the prime sponsors'

Year Fnd Reports with respect to their undertaking exemplary or innovative

YEDPA program activities during FY 78. The findings reveal that only 26 of

the 57 prime sponsors (or 45.6%) indicated that they had designed and implemented some type of exemplary or innovative YEDPA program activity during

that year. It should again, however, be emphasized that the classification of

an activity as being exemplary or innovative in nature was made by the prime

sponsor, not by the authors of this study.

Table 11-25: Did Prime Sponsor Mention Any Exemplary

or Innovative YEDPA Program Activities Undertaken

as Part of Its Local Knowledge Development Effort?

(N=57)

(A) (3)

Number of Percent of

Response Prime Sponsors Prime Sponsors

Yes 26 45.6%

No/No Mention

Any K.D. 31 54.4%

Activities

Total 57 100.0%

Information on the types of exemplary or innovative youth program

activities undertaken by prime sponsors is presented in Tabl.. 1:-26 on the

following page. The most frequently mentioned type of inno,rative or exemplary.

youth program activity was that of mixed-income experiments under YETP. Twelve

of the twenty-six prime sponsors undertaking some type of innovative YEDPA

activity were involved in conducting such mixed income experiments.

95 S,Iction

345(a) of the YFDPA Act allowed prime sponsors to use up to 10% of their YETP
Table I1-26: aus of Exemplary or innovative

YEDPA Prorrlm Act- Mies

(N=26).

(A) (B)

Number Of Percent Of

Type of Activity Prime Sponsors* Prime Sponsors

Centralized Intake and

Assessment 2 7.7%

Career Employment Experience/

Newly-Designed Work Experience

Activities 10 38.5%

Exemplary Institutional

4 15.4%

Vottional Exploration/

OJT in the Private Sector 6 23.1%

OJVInJtituticnal

Trening Combinations 3 11.6%

YETP Mixed Income

Experiments

LEA Linkages

Centralized Placement

12 46.1%

3 11.6%

1 3.8%

*Note: Multiple responses to this question were allowed; thus, the number

of exemplary or innovative activities will exceed the total number

of pn.me sponsors citing such activities.
-7Rmonies to administer programs to serve youth from a variety of family income

backgrounds. The primnrr purpo!, of sup! experiments was to test whether or

not economically disadvantaged youth woule receive net benefits from participating in programs with youth from other socioeconomic backgrounds.

Ten of the twenty-six prime sponsors (38.5%) mentioned career employment

experience or newly-designed 'cork experience activities as their innovative

or exemplary program activities during FY 78. Other "exemplary" or "innovative" programs cited by prime snonscrs included Vocational Exploration Programs linked to the private sector (6), unique classroom training programs (4),

and combined classroom/OJT programs (3). The other types of innovative or

exemplary program activities were LEA linkages (3), centralized intake and

assessment (2), and centralize job placement services (1). It should be

noted t'at in many instances, prime sponsors did not design and implement an

evaluation study to assess the effectiveness of these exemplary or innovative

program activities.

Table 11-27, i.elow, provides information on the reasons cited by prime

sponsors for their failure to design and implement any innovative or exemplary

programs during FY 78. Only 12 of the 31 prime sponsors failing to undertake

any innovative or exemplary activities provided an explanation for the

absence of such efforts in their Year End Report. The most-frequently cited

reason for their failure to undertake such activities was a lack of adequate

planning time and the perceived need on their part to get their YEDPA programs

%-traHng as quickly as possible. The need to devote substantial staff time

t) the Title VI PSE buildup in their areas was included in these reponses. The

other factors influencing the absence of unique or experimental programs designs

un'r YEDPA were a limited understanding of knowledge development in general

(3), limited staff experience in designing innovative youth employment and
Table 11-27: Types of Reasons Cited by Prime Sponsors

for the Absence of Exemplary Program Design*

During FY 78

(N=12)

Number Of

Reason Prime Sponsors*

Lack of Planning Time/

Need for Rapid Start-Up

Primary Focus On Improving

Existing Program Operations

Limited Experience in Innovative

Program Development and Design

Limited Understanding of

Knowledge Development

*Note: Ko.tiple Responses were allowed; thus, the number of

l'asons for the absence of exemplary program design

will exceed the number of individual prime sponsors

citing at least one reason.

9

2

2

3
-80-

training programs (2), and the desire of the prime sponsor to focus its

initial YEDPA efforts on improving the quality of existing youth program operations (2). Similar types of problems in undertaking knowledge development

activities have been cited in other studies of prime sponsors' youth knowledge

development efforts. For example, a recent report prepared for the National

Office of Youth Programs concluded that:

"Many primes did not initially take kindly to KD. In part, this attitude

reflected a general lack ofnpnderstanding of KD and a shortage of time

7u for implementing KD plans. " As revealed above, the preliminary review of the EYR's revealed that

relatively few "unique and effective' programs were undertaken by prime

sponsors as part of their FY 78 knowledge development efforts. As a result,

the authors detided to broaden their approach to this issue and attempted to

determine the degree to which prime sponsors appeared to understand the basic

inquiry oriented premise of the knowledge development mandate outlined in the

Youth Nanning Charter. It should be noted that a positive response was

recorded for the prime sponsor if it even hinted at an understanding of this

basic premise in its Year End Report. In other words, regardless of the actual

substance of the knowledge development activity or the EYR discussion of the

activity, a prime sponsor was assumed to possess this basic understanding if

the knowledge development activity was designed (or implied a design) to

"test ", "prove", "demonstrate", "compare", "contrast", and/or "evaluate".

The findings presented in Table 11-28 below indicate that, even using

the most lenient and inclusive classification system, one-third of the prime

sponsors did not summarize their FY 78 YEDPA knowledge development activities

in a way that reflected an understanding of this essential and basic inquiry

perspective.
Table 11-28: Did the Prime Sponsor !.%Itibit a Basic

Understanding of the Inquir: Orientation of the

Know]edy2 Development Process?

(N=57)

Response

(A) (B)

Nun6er of Percent of

Prime Sponsors Prime Sponsors

Yes 38 66.7%

No 39 33.3%

Total 57 100.0%

Th, 19 prime sponsors whose EYRs did not appear to exhibit this basic

understanding provided discussions of knowledge development activities that

were characterized by one or more of the following features:

i) A discussion designed to indicate the absence of any knowledge

development, e.g.: "knowledge development as described was not a

part of the FY 78 YEDPA program";

ii) A discussion designed to indicate a reason for the absence of a knowledge development component, e.g.: "this activity could not be

completed due. to implementation problems"; "by utilizing the relatively stable type of program format that is used in Title I programs, a more limited risk was assumed by the prime sponsor. This

format will permit defunding much more readily than a program designed around a truly experimental approach to youth unemployment";

iii) A discussion of what appeared to be a legitimate knowledge development activity, but which was not c_assified as such by the prime

sponsor, e.g.: "While no speCific K.D. programs were planned, the

sponsor did investigate several issues, including the effect of private sector involvement on the assimilation of youth into unsubsidized

employment";

(19
-82-

iv) A discussion of a totally unrelated matter presented under a

knowledge development guisi... Forcxample, prime sponsors would list

the following types of activities as part of their "knowledge development" effort:

"develop a community resource inventory to '.rtiprove the network

of communication with supportive services agencies";

"to involve our youth advisory council in all aspects of YEDPA

and the operations of MA";

"to develop and implement a viable residential recycling program which was to be absorbed by either local government or a private

profit-making firm on a fullscale, permanent basis."

v) A discussion of traditional youth program activities under the knowledge development section, e.g., the provision of subsidized work

experience opportunities for economically disadvantaged youth.

The above discussions that that were contained in the EYRs of prime

sponsors may reflect either or both of the following two situations. First,

they appear in many instances to reflect an inability to understand the basic

underpinnings of knowledge development. Secondly, they seem to indicate the

absence of a local priority for the knowledge development mandate of the Youth

Planning Charter. In some instances, the prime sponsor seemed to understand

the basic KD premises, but did not give serious consideration to that particular YEDPA activity. 97 Those prime spoLsors' EYR discussions that were classified as possessing some ostensible understanding of the knowledge development

mandate, were characterized by wide differences in both the nature of such

activities as well as report quality.98 The following general types of discussions were provided in these EYR:

i) Discussionsofwell-planned program innovations, based on a perceived

problem or an unanswered question on potential solutions to those

problems;

ul
-83-

1.1 Discussion of an evaluation component designed to assess the

effectiveness of an on-going or past program;99

iii) Discussions of actual or proposed activities that represented a rudimentary understanding of the KD process, but lacked the necessary

specificity, creativity in design, and/or feasibility of being

accomplished, e.g.: "compare the relative merits of different

training approaches", "explore the value of supervision", "explore

the value of the LEA agreement."

This latter characteristic may be reflective of either of the following

two general sets of problems, First, it may reflect an inability on the part

of the prime sponsor to understand the K.D. mandate at any but the most fundamental level. In other words, it represents a limited capacity to take that

general understanding and translate it into a specific, well-defined process

of inquiry. Secondly, the prime sponsor may possess a more complete understanding of the essence of the K.D. mandate, but not have sufficient rcsaLrces,

time, staff, expertise, and/or technical assistance to undertake a comprehensive local knowledge development effort. The extent to which prime sponsors

were able to go beyond an understanding of the fundamentals of knowledge

development will be explored in a later sub-section of this report. That

section will examine prime sponsors' compliance with the EYR instructions

with respect to including a discussion of the evaluation methodology utilized

to assess local research and demonstration projects and the findings of such

evaluations.
-84--

THE PROGRAM SUBSTITUTION ISSUES

EYR Instructions and Youth Planning Charter Goals

The YEDPA legislation authorizing the YETP and YCCIP programs contained a policy

statement in which Congress clearly indicated its intent that funds provided under

YEDPA were to be used to add to, rather than substitute for, existing efforts to

100

serve youth under ('xisting CETA programs. Reflecting this Congressional mandate, the

Youth Planning Chaii-c emphasized that CETA services provided to youth, especially

under Title I (now Title II B, C), would not be reduced because of the availability of

additional funds for youth under YEDPA. The Youth Planning Charter discussed the need

to prevent the diversion of existing youth resources away from youth since total YEDPA

funding was only capable of expanding overall youth employment and training resources

by a small fraction.

It appears, however, that a major problem in meeting this mandate as well as others

occurred because ETA did not immediately provide an objective measure to Prime Sponsors

by which their performance in meeting YEDPA goals related to substitution could be

evaluated. This behavior, according to several outside observers, "adds to the

101

suspicion of the prime sponsors as to the real objectives of the legislation". Although

limited evidence exists, it appears that at least some prime sponsors "view(ed) YEDPA

as an add-on to current youth activities although the details of what would constitute

102

"substitution" or how it would be measured remained unclear'.

In light of this ambiguity it appears likely that during the planning, implementation

and operations of the YETP and YCCIP programs, prime sponsors did not possess a detailed

understanding of what "substitution" was, how to measure it, or how to avoid it. With

respect to the Prime Sponsors End of Year Reports, discussions of the program substitution

issue were in many cases further confused by the instructions that ETA provided to them

on this issue.
-85-

The instructions for the section of the EYR related to YEDPA monies possibly

being substituted for Title I funds devoted to youth were found under the general

rubric of "Program Supplementation". These instructions suggested that Prime Sponsors

consider including the following information in their EYR reports:

"1. Percentage of planned level of services;

2. Provision of services from other agencies (i.e. administration, materials,

equipment, supplies from CSA, LEA or other);

3. Increases in YEDPA staffing necessitated by new agreements with other agencies

103

such as LEA".

The suggested information cited above deals primarily with the "Overhead must be

minimized" provision of the Youth Planning Charter and would provide little insight

into the "substitution must be avoided" provision of the Youth Planning Charter. As a

result, prime sponsors were li)mly further confusei about the meaning of program substitution.

In short, the combination of continuous uncertainty over the precise meaning of

program substitution and the extraordinavily poor reporting instructions provided to

prime sponsors resulted in EYR discussions based on a number of various interpretations

of the " substitution avoidance" principle of the Youth Planning Charter.

Alternative Interpretations of the Substitution Avoidance Issue in the EYR

Prime Sponsors' interpretations of the meaning of the "eubatitution avoidance"

principle proved to be quite difficult to classify since the brief discussions of the

issue frequently appeared to be fraught with various shades of meaning. At times conflicting statements as to whether or not substitution occurred were included in the

same EYR. Issues of fiscal substitution and services mix substitution (discussed

below) were also included by prime sponsors. In addition, there were a number of

prime sponsors who simply followed the EYR instructions and did not deal with the

program substitution issue at all. As a result, the data provided in the tables of

this report may be subject to errors associated with the authors' interpretations.
-.86-

of what frcquently proved to be terse and awkwardly phrased discussions of program

substitution by the prime sponsors.

A total of 71 different discussions of prqgram substitution were included in the

57 EYR's reviewed during this study. This disparity occurred since some prime sponsors

choPA: to separately discuss substitution issues related to YETP and YCCIP programs.

YFTP substitution avoidance was discussed independently of YCCIP 19 times, and YCCIP

program substitution was discussed separately 16 times. Combined discussions of YETP

and YCCIP substitution avoidance were found in 36 EYR's. Tabulations of the interpretations of program substitution provided by prime sponsors in their EYR's are found in

Table Ti-79 .The findings reveal that more than one-half cf the combined YETP-YCCIP

discussions of program substitution contained in the EYR's were based on substitution

avoidance as discussed in the Youth Planning Charter. Only about.one-third of the

separate discussions of either YEDPA program were based upon the YPC substitution

avoidance principle. This is not to say that one-half of the combined and one-third

of the separate discussions of program substitution were adequate, but instead only

indicates the number of cases in which the discussion of substitution occurred within

the appropriate context.

The primary source of error in Prime Sponsor discussions of program substitution

seems to have been their adherence to the actual EYR instructions. About one-third

of the combined YETP-YCCIP discussions of "substitution" precisely followed the instructions for completion of the EYR provided by ETA. As such, the discussions dealt

almost exclusively with the "overhead must be minimized" principle of the Youth Planning

Charter. Over one-half of the separate YETP and YCCIP discussions provided

in the EYR's were also written within the context of the program supplementation outline provided in the ETA instructions. A relatively small number of the EYR's contained.

discussions of the substitution avoidance issue that were not based on cdther the Youth
-87-

Table II-29:Alternative Types of Discussions of Substitution Provided

by Prime Sponsors Within Their EYR Reports,

(A) (B) (C)

Combined

YETP YCCIP YETP-YCCIP

Discussion Discuszion Discussion

ONLY ONLY

Youth Planning

Charter 7 5 19

Program

Supplementation 10 8 14

Other 2 3 3 19 16 36
-88-

Planning Charter or the ETA instructions. Two EYR's discussed actions that the Prime

Sponsor would take to avoid substitution in the future, while providing no discussion

of the substitution issue in the past. Four other discussions of substitution focused

upon the services mix of Title I youth programs vis-a-vis services provided under YEDPA.

Staff in these prime sponsors apparently believed that substitution could be avoided by

ensuring that the services provided under YEDPA did not overlap with the types of

services provided to youth under Title I. One EYR interpreted the substitution principle

to mean that a sort of fiscal substitution should be avoided. This prime sponsor stated

that all of the staff hired to operate the program had been unemployed and were net new

additions to the staff. Finally, one of the EYR's reviewed simply avoided the substitution issue entirely.

The Substance of the Prime Sponsor. Discussions of the Substitution Issue

Data provided in Tab].e 11-30 summarize the substance of the substitution avoidance

discussions provided by prime sponsors in the EYR's. Of the 36 combined YETP-YCere

substitution discussions, 12 of the 36 reports reviewed indicated in some fashion

that program substitution as defined in the YPC did not occur. Similarly, 12 of the

35 separate YETP-YCCIP discussions of substitution indicated that substitution of

YEDPA for Title I youth efforts had been avoided. These low proportions of prime

sponsors reporting compliance with substitution avoidance, however, should not be interpreted to imply that the remainder of the Prime Sponsors frequently substituted YEDPA for

Title I resources in serving youth. Indeed, only three of the EYR's indicated that

substitution had occurred between the two CETA Titles. The bulk of the EYR's reviewed

during this study simply failed to reveal whether or not substitution had occurred or

to discuss the degree of such substitution.,
-89-

Table TI- 3Q: Types of Substitution Issue Responses

Response

EYR indicated no

substitution occurred

EYR indicated that

substitution had occurred

Did not indicate if

substitution occurrE.

EYR indicated amount

Of substitution

EYR indicated why

substitution occurred

EYR provided recommendations

about the substitution goal

(Al (B) (C)

YETP YCCIP YETP-YCCIP

Discussion Discussion Discussion

7 5 12

O 0 3

12 11 21

O 0 1

O 0 3

O 0 1
-90-

Evidence Provided in Prime Sponsor Fnd of Year. Reports to Support the View that

Substitution was Avoided

Data provided in Table 11-31 illustrate the types of evidence provided by Prime

Sponsors to support their contention that YEDPA resources were not used in place of

Title I resources to serve youth. In general, Prime Sponsor staff relied on ore of

the following two types of documentation to support their contentions:

1. The EYR included a statement that no substitution occurred (9 EYR's)

or The EYR included a statement that FY'77 Title I efforts for youth were

maintained in FY'78 (8 EYR's)

2. The EYR provided a comparison between FY 77 and FY 78 proportions

of youth served under Title I. (5 EYR's)

One additional EYR provided comparions of FY 77 and FY 78 Title I youth expenditure

levels while another report compared the number of youth served in FY 77 and FY 78

under Title I programs.

Problems in Interpreting the Information Related to the Substitution Issue Provided

by Prime Sponsors in Their End of Year Reports

Three major problems existed that substantially reduced the usefulness of insights

into the program substitution issue that were provided by prime sponsors in their End

of Year reports. First, at the inception of the YEDPA programs, the "substitution avoidance" issue was not rigorously defined. In a number of case studies on YEDPA implementation

conducted for the National Council on Employment Policy, prime sponsors repeatedly indicated an uneasiness with YEDPA because they were unsure of the measures that OYP

and the regional offices of ETA would employ in evaluating their performance with respect

to this ..ssue. The issue of a lack of a specific performance measure for gauging compliance with substitution avoidance was identified by a number of prime sponsors as a

major area of concern. It.is conceivable, therefore, that at least some prime sponsors

paid little attention to the substitution avoidance issue sine they may have been

uncertain themselves as to the extent of their compliance. Because of- the vagueness
-91-

Table I I- 31:. Type of Documentation Supplied by

Prime Sponsors with Respect to the Substitution Issue

Type of

Documentation

Simple statement that

no substitution occurred

Statement that FY77 Title

I efforts were maintained

in FY78

Provided comparisons

of FY77 and FY78

youth expenditure

levels

Provided comparisons

between FY77 and FY78

shares of Title I

expenditures on youth

Provided comparisons

between FY77 and

FY78 numbers of youth

served

Provided comparisons

between FY77 and FY78

shares of youth served

with Title I

Discussed EYR

substitution

None

Other

(A)

YETP

Discussion

(B)

YCCIP

Discussion

(C)

Combination

YETP-YCCIP

Discussion

4 3 2

1 2 5

1

0

0 0 1

1 0 4

10 8 14

2 3 6

0 6 4
-92-

surrounding the concept of substitution avoidance and the possibility of certain

costs being disallowed as a result of non-compliance with this provision of the YPC,

some prime sponsors may have deliberately neglected to discuss the substitution avoid104

ance issue in a substantive way in their EYR's.

A second major problem in interpreting the substitution avoidance discussions

presented within the EYR's occurred as a result of the confusing instructions received

by prime sponsors with respect to the substitution issue. More than half of the EYR's

in which the Prime Sponsor failed to indicate if substitution had been avoided explicity

followed the reporting instructions. None of the EYR's in which the ETA instructions

were used as a framework for discussion indicated whether or not substitution had occurred.

In short, the ETA instructions related to the program substitution issue likely substantially reduced the amount of useful information provided by prime sponsors with

respect to the substitution issue.

The third and perhaps most important problem associated with interpretations of

the substitution avoidance issue is related to the lack of a specific performance

measure for substitution avoidance at the time of the drafting of these reports. A

number of the EYR reports did discuss the substitution issue with-n the context of

the Youth Planning Charter. The set of EYR reports providing such a discussion can

be classified into four broad groupings on the basis of the manner in which they discussed the program substitution issue.

1. Those prime sponsors submitting EYR reports that included only a generalized

statement that "no substitution occurred". No other discussion of this issue

was included nor were any data presented in support of such an assertion.

2. Those prime sponsors whose EYR reports stated that FY 77 Title I

employment and training efforts for youth were maintained during FY'78. No

other discussion was included, nor were any data provided to justify the

claim.
-93-

3. Those prime sponsors whose EYR reports provided comparisons of either the

level or percentage share of 'FY 77 and FY '78 Title I expenditures devoted

to youth activities to indicate that ,) substitution had occurred.

4. Those prime sponsors whose EYR reports provided a comparison of the total

number of youth participants or the percentage share of al] participants

represented by youth in FY '77 with FY '78 Title I youth participant levels

or shares to indicate that no substitution had occurred.

Unfortunately, because of the lack of a specific performance measure, it is not

possible to discern whether or not substitution had occurred among those prime sponsors

that provided documentation of this sort.

At least four alternative measures were available to prime sponsors for use in

assessing their compliance with the substitution avoidance objective. These four

measures are briefly discussed below to shed some insights into the difficulties in

interpreting data related to the substitution avoidande issue.

Measure I: Compare FY'77 Title I expenditure levels on youth with FY'78 Title I

expenditure levels on youth.

Title I FY'78 Youth Expenditure Level Youth

Title I FY'77 Youth Expenditure Level = Expenditure

Level Substitution Ratio

Measure II: Compare FY'77 percentage snare of Title I expenditures on youth to

FY'78 percentage share of Title I expenditures on youth.

FY'78 Title I Youth Share of Expenditures Youth

FY'77 Title I Youth Share of Expenditures = Share Substitution

Ratio

Measure III: Compare the total number of youth served under Title I programs in

FY'77 with the total number of youth served under Title I in FY'78.

Number of Youth Served Under Title I in FY'78

Number of Youth Served Under Title I in FY'77 =

Youth Participant

Level Substitution

Ratio
Measure IV: Compare the share of total participants accounted for by youth that

Ipere served under Title I i.n FY'77 with the youth share of total persons

served under Title I in FY'78.

Youth Share of Participants Served Under Title I in FY'78 Youth Participant

Youth Share of Participants Served Under Title I in FY'77 = Share Substitutic

Ratio

For each of the above four measures, a ratio greater than or equal to one would

indicate that "no substitution" had taken place between the two fiscal years. A value

of less than one for any of the above four ratios would indicate that some degree of

substitution had occurred. The specific value of this ratio by itself is not capable

of revealing the precise degree of substitution for reasons that will be noted below.

The above four different measures were presented since under specific circumstances

it is quite possible that different findings as to whether or not substitution had

actually occurred could be obtained for each measure.

Sharp differences between the values of expenditure and participant served substitution ratios (based on either levels or shares) could occur if program costs rise

or fall between two years while the number of participants served rises or falls in

the opposite direction from program costs. For instance, a relatively large year to

year change in the types of services provided to youth under Title I could have affected

program expenditures for youth in one way while the number of youth served by that

prime sponsor could have moved in an opposite direction.

Differences among the various substitution ratios can also exist depending upon

whether levels or shares are used in their calculation. For example, if an expansion

in a prime sponsor's total Title I budget took place between two years while the

prime sponsor maintained its same level of expenditures on youth or served the same total number of youth, then a comparison of the absolute levels of expenditures on youth or the total number of youth served in both of these two years would reveal no

substitution. A comparison of the relative shares of resources devoted to youth

1'v
-95--

would, however, reveal that substitution had occurred since the base upon which the constant level of expenditures or enrollments was calculated increased between the two years.

To illustrate this possibility, the following hypothetical example has been prepared. Suppose that in FY'77 a prime sponsor served 10 youths at a total cost of

$20,000 by providing in-school youth with part-time work experience. In the following

year, the prime sponsor changed its program mix for youth, with the result that it

served only 5 out-of-school youth in a relatively long-term work experience program

at a cost of $20,000. Further, assume that the total number of individuals served

under all Title I programs of this prime sponsor incceased from 100 to 200 while total

Title I expenditures remained constant at a level of $300,000 due to a shift in the

services mix between these two years away from long-term classroom skill training programs toward relatively short-term work experience for adults. These latter programs

have lower average costs per participant. On the basis of the above information, one

can calculate values for each substitution measure and obServe the differences that

would occur among each of these four measures.

Number of youth served under Title I in FY'77 = 10

Total number of individuals served under Title

I in FY'77 = 100

Level of expenditures for youth under Title I

in FY'77 = $ 20,000

Total level of expenditures under Title I in

FY'77 = $300,000

Number of youth served under Title I in FY'78 = 5 Total number of individuals served under Title

I in FY'78 = 200

Level of expenditures for youth under Title I

in FY'78 = $ 20,000

Total level of expenditures under

in FY'78 = $300,000
-96-

Value of Measure I:

Title I FY'78 Youth Expenditure Level = $20,000 = 1.00 Title I FY'77 Youth Expenditure Level $20,000

Thy value of this measure would indicate that no substitution had occurred.

Value of Measure II:

FY'78 Title I Youth Share of Expenditures = 20,000 - 300,000 = .0G7 = 1.N0 FY'77 Title I Youth Share of Expenditures 20,000 - 300,000 .067

Again, the value of the measure indicates that no substitution had occurred.

Value of Measure III:

Number of Youth Served Under Title I FY'78 = 5 = .50

Number of Youth Served Under Title I FY'77 10

The value of this measure indicates that substantial substitution adverse to youth took place in this prime sponsor's planning area.

Value of Measure IV:

Youth Share of Participants Served Under Title I in FY'78 = 5 - 200 = .025 = .25 Youth Share of Participants Served Under Title I in FY'77 10 - 100 .10

As above, the value of this measure indicates that substantial, substitution adverse

to youth took place in this prime sponsor's planning area between these two years.

The findings presented above clearly indicate that, even for those prime sponsors

whose EYR reports provided comparisons between their FY'77 and FY'78 Title I programs

with respect to either expenditures on youth or youth participants served, it is not

possible to precisely discern whether program substitution had actually occurred.

In short, it is not clear by which of the above four standards prime sponsk -

in this area should be judged.

The discussion up to this point has primarily been concerned with avoidance of

substitution of YETP and YCCIP efforts for youth for those employment and training

services previously provided to youth under Title I of Ct"PA. The YEDPA legislation as

well as the Youth Planning Charter, however, did not limit their discussion of substitution

avoidance solely to maintenance of effort under Title I. Rather, YEDPA-was described
-97-

in both documents as a program designed to provide a total net incren in employment

and training services provided to youth under CETA. While it is likely that substitution

between Title I and YEDPA would only occur for youth 18 years of age or below, a

possibility does exist that YEDPA funds could be used in place of funds from other

Titles of the CETA Act for young adults aged 18-21, particularly counter-cyclical and

structural PST ,ms as well as several categorical programs such as STIP. There.-

fore, in addition to the need for the development of a specific substitution avoidance

measure or set of measures, the programmatic scope of such a measure needs also to be

more clearly delineated by ETA.

It should be noted, however, that for FY'79 Year End Reports the confusion among

prime sponsors over the substitution avoidance issue should be substantially mitigated

by the recent publication of a substitution avoidance measure by ETA. While not designed

to address the qualitative aspects of the substitution issue, the new ETA directive should

provide a more detailed understanding of quantitative aspects of

substitution avoidance to prime sponsor staff.

Prime Sponsor Recommendations Regarding Substitution Avoidance

Only one prime sponsor provided a set of recommendations with respect to the substitution avoidance principle of the Youth Planning Charter. The Balanoe of State

Massachusetts prime sponsor in a well articulated statement argued the identical quantity

of services to 'youth in FY'79 as in FY'78 "...will require a larger proportion of Title I

monies due to smaller allocations...(and) fewer resources will be available for adults".

BOS Massachusetts indicated that, while 7.6% of all economically disadvantaged individuals

in the state were youth under the age of 20, such youth constituted 51.4% of the prime

sponsor's FY'78 total number of Title I enrollments. This resulted from a large in-school

program. Disproportionate shares of enrollment in Title I also existed for youth aged

20-21, but the disparity was of a substantially lower magnitude. The Massachusetts

BOS prime sponsor questioned the inequities to specific demographic groups (those 22 and

over) of maintaining the FY'77 level of service to youth under Title I programs.
-98-

Institutional Linkages

The seventh principle of the Youth Planning Charter stated that "The new

105 youth programs are not the cutting edge for institutional change." The Charter

noted that there was a need for more information on the effectiveness of alternative

youth programs before the Congress could determine either the tyr-s ,f youth program approaches to emphasize on a national basis or the total of monies to

be allocated to youth programs. As 'a result of the absence of such specific

information, the Charter noted that "We do not intend, therefore, to try to

6 force or buy reforms with the YEDPA." 10

A priority would be placed, however, on efforts to facilitate linkages between youth programs under YEDPA and other key

actors in the employment and training system, including local schools, community-based

organizations, labor unions, and the private, sector. A number of the linkages

between prime sponsors and both CBO's and private for profit firms in delivering YETI' services were (Vsettssed in a previous section of this report davoted.to service

delivery agents under YETP.

The YEDPA Act attempted to influence the nature and extent of linkages

between YEDPA programs and other institutions in several different ways. Firlat

of all, Section 346(b) of the Act stated that the Youth PlanningkCouncil established by the prime sponsor must contain representatives of local educational

agencies, local vocational education advisce councils, business, labor unions,

and community organizations responsible for providing special services to youth.

Secondly, Section 343(d)(1) of the Act contained provisions requiring prime

sponsors to develop an agreement with Local Educational Agencies (LEA's) for the

delivery of services to.in-school youth under YETP. Thirdly, Section 346(a)(3)

of the Act required prime sponsors to coordinate their YETP programs with local

educational agencies, community-based organizations, businesses, labor unions,

and other job training programs. Finally, Section 353(d) of the Act required

prime sponsors to notify local labor organizations of plans to, fund YEDPA projects

1o)
-99-

if such unions represented workers in occupational areas similar to those in

proposed YEDPA projects, e.g., carpenters, bricklayers, etc. Such labor organizations were to be given the opportunity to comment on the program application of

the prime sponsor prior to its submission to the regional office of ETA.107

The instructions for preparing the End of Year Report on FY 78 YEDPA programs

suggested that the prime sponsors discuss their linkages with Local Educational

Agencies (LEA's), unions, and the private sector.

108

A review of the findings of

the Year End Reports with respect to prime sponsor linkages with each of these

three sets of actors is presented below.

LEA Agreements

The funds provided to prime sponsors under YEDPA were expected to be viewed

by them as "Clue money" to tie together existing employment and training services

109

for youth. As noted above, the YEDPA legislation did attempt in a number of different ways to influence the nature and extent of linkages between prime sponsors

YEDPA programs and other educational and training institutions in the local area,

particularly Local Educational Agencies (LEA's). Section 343(d)(1) of the Act

contained provisions requiring prime sponsors to develop an agreement with LEA's

for not less than 22% of their total YETP allocation to provide services to in-school

youth. The rules and regulations for YEDPA noted, however, that such LEA agreements

110

could be either financial or non-financial in nature.

The instructions for preparing the End of Year Report on FY 78 YEDPA programs

suggested that prime sponsors discuss features of the linkages that they had developed

with LEA's. Among the suggested topics of discussion were the coverage of their

agreements with LEA's, progress in obtaining academic credit for YETP and YCCIP program participants, and the degree of support they had received from state and federal

111

agencies in developing their LEA agreements. The review of the 57 EYR's included

in this study revealed that nearly 95% of the prime sponsors included soma discussion

of their efforts to secure LEA agreements (See Table '1-32).112

A number of these

110
Table 11-32:

Reaponse

-100-

Did Prime Sponsor Secure

LEA Agreements During FY 78?

(Nr-57)

(A) (B)

Number of % of all

Prime Sponsors Prime Cponsors

Secured an LEA

agreement 53 93.0%

Failed to secure

an LEA Agreement 1 1.8%

Did not discuss

LEA Agreements 3 5.2%

Table 11-33:

Response

57 100.0%

Number of Prime Sponsors

Experiencing Some Difficulty In

Securing an LEA Agreement (N=57)

(A) (B)

Number of % of

Prime Sponsors Prime Sponsors

Experienced some

difficulty in obtaining

LEA Agreement 16 28.1%

Experienced no difficulty in obtaining

LEA Agreement 32 56.1%

Did not discuss experiences in securing an

LEA Agreement 9 15.8%

57 100.0%

111
-101-

prime sponsors, however, did not discuss this topic under Principle :almbur ;;even of

their report as suggested by the instructions. P.,:tther, thy; ;)1.ovicIL:1 only

brief discussions of their relationships with LEA's in the section of the report

devoted to the quality of work experience for youth.

Of the 54 prime sponsors that included some discussion of the LEA agreement,

53 indicated at least partial success in securing an agreement with at least some of the LEA's in their jurisdiction. Only 70% of the prime sponsors negotiating such

agreements provided information on the proportion of LEA's in their planning jurisdiction that were covered by such agreements. As expected, such information was more

readily available from the city and consortium prime sponsors than from 131ance of

State prime sponsors who had to deal in some instances with more than 100 individual

LEA's. The EYR's did reveal, however, that prime sponsors frequently experienced

some difficulty in securing agreements with LEA's. Over one-quarter of the prime

sponsors indicated that they had encountered some difficulty in securing LEA agreements (See Table 11-33). Generally, these Prime Sponsors discovered that LEA', were

initially reluctant to become involved in a formal reationship with CETA. Stich

reluctance was based in part upon LEA's perceptions that substantial "red tape"

would be involved in developing such an agreement. Conflicts between LEA and CETA

planning and funding cycles also complicated the task of securing such agreements113

In addition, problems in reaching agreement upon an academic credit policy for youth

participating in YETP and YCCIP programs114

and a reluctance on the part of LEA's to

target resources to only a select set of in-school youth also served as barriers to

115

the development of agreements between local schools and CETA,(See Table 1/-34).

Only one7third of the prime sponsors mentioned any assistance from federal

or state educational agencies in developing agreements with LEA's. In all instances,

this assistance was provided by a state rather than a federal educational agency.

Thib aid primarily took the form of a liaison from a state department of education

to help the prime sponsor secure LEA agreements, particularly in Balonco of State
102-

prime sponsor areas. Several prime sponsors also notd the cooperation of state education superintendents or commissione7.-s in promoting LEA- prime sponsor linkages at

the local level. For example, one prime sponsor commented,

"The conclusion of LEA agreements was made easier than would otherwise

have been the case because our state's Superintendent of Public Instruction

advised secondary school administrators of the coming of YETP. . . . About

601 of tNe FY' 78 YETP allocation was committed to serve in-school youth in

in-school programs in the Balance of State."

In spite of the above problems, a substantial number of the prime sponsors indicated that the LEA agreements did represent a step forward for their local CETA sys116

tems. In some instances, the degree of progress was quite substantial. Among the

comments made by these prime sponsors were the following:

"Educational institutions have never been so heavily involved

within the Balance of State planning area."

"The Local Educational Agency Agreement presented an accomplishment

in providing employment and training opportunities to eligible young persons

in suburban school distri:;ts previously unserved by CETA youth programs. it

also established a direct linkage. within the school system between the work

exper.:.encu program and the C;u:daacc and Counzelin4 Dapal:tmlInt."

". . . The prime sponsor was able to increase the quality of work experience through a liaison agreement with the Local Education Agency which

necessitated a more structured program of related education to augment

such work experience."

Generally, it was not possible to discern from the information provided in

prime sponsors' E7R's whether tho LEA agreement was financial or non-financial in

nature. Rarely did prime sponsors indicate in their Year End Reports either th3

absolute dollar value of the LEA agreement or the percentage share of the YETP

budget devoted to the LEA agreement.

Slightly more than 70% of the prime sponsors indicated that they had developed

arrangements with LEA's for the awarding of academic credit to at least a portion

of the participants in their YETP and YCCIP programs. (See Table 11-35) It was not

possible, however, to discern from the Yoar. End Reports the actual number or percentage

of YETP and YCCIP participants that received academic credit as a result of program

participation. Most prime sponsors who indicated that academic credit had been pro1 1 3
-103-

Table II- 34: Sources of LEA Reluctance

to Participate in YEDPA. Programs

Reasons Number

LEA's generally reluctant to deal

with CETA at all 8

Conflict between CETA and school

planning and funding cycles 3

LEA and Prime Sponsor unable to

agree upon an academic credit

policy 3 Schools were reluctant to serve

particular target groups 2

Schools were unwilling to pay

youth to attend classes (remedial ed.) 1

Table 11-35: WintaPoPat_Batab_m_AgrAtrAnt

for Awarding Academic Credit to YETP and/or YCCIP

Participants? . 57)

(A) (B)

Number of Percentage of

Response_ Prime Sponsors Prime Sponsors

Yes 40 70.2%

No 9 15.8%

No Mention 8 14.0%

TOTAL 57 100%
-104-

vided did so by making such statements as the following: "In a few in-school prograrls

academic credit was successfully awarded for career work experience participation."

Another 16% of the prime sponsors included in the study stated that they had been

totally unsuccessful in obtaining academic credit for the youths participating in

their YEDPA programs. Unfortunately, the prime sponsors falling into this.category

often failed to explain in a detailed fashion the reasons We.y academic credit was not

granted by LEA's to participants in. their YETP and YCCIP programs. The remainder of

the prime sponsors (14%) failed to discuss the issue of academic credit in their

Year End Reports.

It should not have been difficult for prime sponsors to report specific data

on the number of YETP and YCCIP participants awarded academic credit since they are

required to report such data on the Youth Program Status Summary submitted quarterly

117

to the regional offices of FTA. While the absence of such data does not

by itself constitute a major deficiency of these reports, the lack of information on the number of YETP and YCCIP participants receiving credit is reflective of the limited

perspective that most prime sponsors adopted in discussing LEA agreements in their

Year End Reports.

Prime sponsor discussions of LEA agreements were focused almost exclusively

upon the proem; c eavelopment of the agreements. Few prime sponsors discussed

the specifl, !.:,,c,Jr:e of the LEA agreement, with the exception of academic credit.

The roles of the schools with respect to YEDPA program operations, management

responsibility, monitoeing, etc. were not included within the EYR discussions.

Caso studies of local Y))PA program operations conducted by the National Council

on Employment Policy discussed a wide variety of issues involving the implementation

118 and operation of YET? and YCCIP programs that were related to LEA agreements.

As these case studies progressed, the early optimism existing among prima sponsors

with respect to the likely success of LEA agreements was discovered to have diminished

substantially. Incongruities between CETA prime sponsors and LEA's became apparent
-105-

as the programs got underway. Unfortunately, the EYR's reviewed in this study almost

universally failed to include discussions of the objectives and content of LEA agreements; of problems encountered in initiating programs funded under the LEA agreement;

or of problems encountered in the continuing operations of such youth programs. The

case studies noted above found that the new linkages between CETA and educational

agencies posed serious problems for both CETA and LEA administrators. These case

studies identified problems in the following areas:

1. Ambiguous goals in LEA agreements, such as whether programs should

find unsubsidized employment for youth or encourage youth to stay in

school. At times CETA prime sponsors and LEA's disagreed as to

appropriate goals.

2. Conflicting views as to whether CETA or LEA staff should monitor

programs and certify participants for academic credit.

3. Conflicts between CETA and LEA planning and funding cycles.

4. Problems in identifying individuals within an LEA who would

be willing to cooperate in a joint program with CETA.

5. Resentment of LEA's toward targeting funds to a specific subset

of in-school youth.

6. Nature of the institutions with whom LEA agreements were reached,

i.e. whether they were developed with Vocational Education or

Non-Vocational Education LEA's, and the impact that such alter+.

native linkages had upon program content and client characteristics.

Unfortunately, few of the EYR's reviewed in this study touched upon any of the

above issues. Consequehtly, the EYR's typically failed to provide any substantive

insights into the implementation and operation of a major component, as well as

a major innovative feature, of the YEDPA effort. In the future, EYR's should 1,0

structured to provide more detailed information both of a qualitative and, where

116
-106-

appropriate, quantitative nature with respect to linkages with LEA's. In particular, the following types of issues should be discussed within this section of

the EYR:

(i) the development o: the LEA agreement, including a discussion of

its goals and objectives;

(ii) the financial nature of the LEA agreement, including dollar amounts

and explanations of differences between actual dollar amounts and

the mandated 22% of YETP funding;

(iii) a discussion of the planned rolesof the CETA prime sponsors and

LEA's in operating the programs;

(iv) a brief description of policies related to the awarding of aca- demic credit, including information on the planned number of

participants for whom academic credit would be awarded;

(v) implementation of programs operated under LEA agreements, including a discussion of annual start -up problem and an identification of factors that may have created these problems such as

conflicting planning/funding cycles; and

(vi) the types of programs funded under LEA agreements, including the

provision of services to participants by both LEA's and CETA

and the extent to which each party met its commitments under the

LEA agreement. This discussion would also provide a comparison

of the planned and actual number of participants receiving academic credit.

In addition to the above issues, prime sponsors should also describe the manner

in which LEA agreements have changed pro -YEDPA relationships between themselves and

LEA's. Such a discussion would desirably include.a brief description of pre-YEDPA

linkages followed by a discussion of the manner in which LEA agreements did succeed

117
-107-

in Changing the nature or extent of such relationships. The prime sponsor's views

as to whether these chflgiges had generated improvements in the level and quality of

services provided to in-school youths would also prove useful.

113
-108-

Linkages with Labor Unions

As noted earlier, prime sponsors were also expected to link their YETP and YCCIP

program activities with local labor unions. The Youth Planning Councils mandated

by the YEDPA Act were to include representatives of labor unions 1

,19

the YETP plans

120

of prime sponsors coordinated with labor union programs , and the YETP and YCCIP

plans of prime sponsors were to be reviewed by labor organizations prior to their

submission to the regional office of the Employment and Training Administration.121

The instructions for preparthg the Year End Report suggested that prime sponsors discuss the role inions played in planning YEDPA programs and in assisting

in the job restructu g efforts of the prime sponsor122 In addition, prime sponsors

were asked to discuss the "effect" that the plan review process had upon generating

local union support for YEDPA programs. The instructions. failed, however, to provide specific examples of such po-ible types of union "support", e.g., union involvement in the traininq of youth,or prime sponsor/union agreements with respect

to the referral and placement of selected terminees in union apprenticeship programs.

During our review of the prime sponsors' Year End Reports, an attempt was made

to determ4.:le whether the prime sponsor had succeeded in establishing linkages with

unions, to identify problems that prime sponsors had encountered in developing such

linkages, and to list their recommendations, if any, for improving such linkages

during FY 79133 . Table 11-36 below provides information on the number of prime sponsors developing some type of linkage with local labor unions during FY 78. Thirty-five

of the fifty-seven prime sponsors (61;50 did indicate in their Year End Reports that

they had developed some linkage with local labor organizations during the first year

of YEDPA operations. The remaining 22 prime sponsors were approximately evenly divided between those who failed to provide any discussion of the role of labor unions

(12) and those who admitted that they had not successfully developed any linkages

during FY 78.
TABLE II- 36:

-109-

Did Prime Sponsor. Succeed in Developing

Linkages_atithLabarUrac* ns_shixingEY 782

(A) (B)

Number of Percentage of

Response Prime Sponsors Prime Sponsors

1,1s 35 61.5%

No 10 .17.5%

No Mention 12 21.1%

TOTAL 57 '100%

TABLE II- 37: Types of Problems Experienced by Prime

Sponsors` in Dealing with Labor Unions (N = 12)

Type of Problem

Little cr no tesponce to requeot for their involvement on youth planning council or for providing services to youth

Limited number or absence of labor unions in prime sponsor

planning area

Number of

Prime Sponsors

Citing Problem

3

4

Lack of :agreement for obtaining access into union apprentice- 2 ship programs for YCCIP)terminees

Too expensive to work with

2

Unions were unwilling to serve females 1

120
-110-

A major portion of those prime sponsors who claimed to have forged some type

of linkage with labor unions admitted that union involvement was rather minimal,

primarily consisting of reviews of YETP and YCCIP plans and membership on the Youth

Planning Council. In only one of the 57 prime sponsor planning jurisdictions was

a labor union organization actually involved in operating a YEDPA project. In

several other prime sponsor areas, union workers had been hired as training supervisors for youth enrolled in selected YETP and YCCIP programs.. Very few of the

Year End Reports provided any discussion of labor union involvement in job restructuring activities of the prime sponsor. This particular finding appears to have

been primarily influenced not by union opposition or disinterest, but rather by

the general absence of formal job restructuring activities among prime sponsors

during FY 70.

During the review of the Year End Reports, an attempt was made to identify

problems that pime sponsors encountered in developing with labor unions

during FY 70. Only 2.?, of .c.]6d9 prir.: sponsors cited specific problems in involving

local unions with YEDPA program activities.. A listing of the types of problems'

encountered by primr spot, ,rs is presented in Table 11-37 above.

The problem most frequently cited by prime sponsors was that of a reluctance

of labor unions to be actively involved in the planning or delivery of employment

and training services to youth. Eight of the twelve prime sponsors cited this type

of.problem. Four other prime sponsors claimed that the absence of 3.inkages with

labor unions in their area was primarily attributable to the complete absence or limited presence of labor unions in their planning area. This was particularly

true of Balance of State prime sponsors serving a largely rural constituency.

The remaining problems cited by prime sponsors were inabilities to develop

formal agreements with labor unions regarding access of YCCIP program terminees

into union-sponsored apprenticeship programs, the high cost of obtaining union-related

training services, and an unwillingness of one particular labor union to provide,

training services to women. A number of the prime sponsors cited the need for

12
technical assistance from the regional offices of ETA and the National Office of

Youth Programs in developing closer linkages with labor organizations, particula :ky

in the-operations of YCCIP projects.

To improve our understanding or the role of labor unions in the planning,

design, and administration of YEDPA programs, the FY 79 Year End Report should be

designed to secure additional information from prime sponsors on progress that

they have made in obtaining linkages with labor organizations during the past year.

More details on the specific nature of union involvement should also be obtained,

including their roles in operating programs, providing instructors for YETP and

YCCIP programs, and coordinating their own apprenticeship and training programs

with the YEDPA-related programs of the prime sponsor. The nature of continuing

barriers to more active union involvement in local YEDPA programs should also be

spelled out in the FY 79 Year End Reports. Such information could be used to

determine the potential need for technical assistance from the regional offices of

124

ETA or the National Office of Youth Programs.

122
-112-

Linkages with the Private Sector

The instructions for drafting the Year-End Report also suggested

that prime sponsors discuss their efforts to involve the business community in their FY '78 YEDPA program activities. Linkages with. the private sector were to be described, including information on the "dollar

amount" of their involvement in local YEDPA operations and their impact

on the design of programs and the attainment of "higher quality" jobs1.25 The instructions did not, however, provide specific guidance as to how

"dollar amounts" of private sector involvement were to be measured,

nor did they indicate whether the "higher quality" jobs referred to

subsidized employment opportunities obtained by youths during their

participation in the program or to the unsubsidized job into which

they were placed at the time of termination. Information on the

latter tees o jobs would seem more appropriate, given .1..he basic

goal of YEDPA programs "of enhancing the job prospects and career

126 opportunities of youths" over the long run.

During our review of the Year End Reports, we attempted to determine whether the prime sponsor had successfully developed linkages with

the local business community during FY '78, to identify specific problems

that it had experienced in developing such linkages, and to list its

plans, if any, to improve those linkages during FY '79. A copy of

the questionnaire and coding format used in conducting this review

can be found in Appendix D of this report.

Table 11-38 summarizes the findings of the review of prime

sponsors' Year End Reports with respect to.the development of linkages with the business community during the first year of YEDPA program operations. The data presented in that table reveal that approximately 701 of the prime sponsors provided some discussion of their
Table II- 38:

Response

Yes

No

-113-

Did Prime Sponsor Succeed in Developing

Linkages with the Business Community

During Ff-T78?-711.s57)

(A) (B)

Number of Percentage of

Prime Sponsors Prime Sponsors

No Mention

TOTAL

31 54.4%

8 14.02

18 31.6%

57 100.0%
-114-

success in developing linkages with the business community. Of the

39 prime sponsors i this group, 31 (or 80%) had succeeded in forging

some linkage with the local business community.

Similar to the findings with respect to labor union involvement

in local YEDPA programs, the major portion of private sector linkages

consisted simply of membership on the prime sponsors' Youth Planning

Council. As noted in the previous discussion of YETP service delivery

agents, less than 30% of the prime sponsors had developed relationships

with the business community involving either on-the-job training or

127

participation in a Vocational Exploration Program (VEP). Data on the

dollar amount of such private sector involvement were only provided by

a few sponsors. The data that were presented typically pertained to the

total dollar allocation for OJT activities under YETP. Whether these

expenditures represented the entire extent of business involvement

in YEDPA program activities aould not typically'be determined on the

basis of the information provided by prime sponsors in their Year -End

128

Reports.

Only eleven prime sponsors cited specific problems that they had

encountered in establishing effective relationships with the business

community. A listing of the specific types of problems cited by these

prime sponsors is presented in Table II -39 below. The most frequently

mentioned problem (cited by 7 of the 11 prime sponsors) was related

to a general lack of responsiveness on the part of the business community to requests for participation on the Youth Planning Council or

for involvement in OJT activities. Two of the prime sponsors indicated

that the major problem in developing such linkages was attributable to

their inability to provide sufficient or qualified staff to develop

meaningful relationships with the private sector. The other problems
Table 11-39:

-115-

Types of Problems Experienced by

FITEICTIVI-137a71ges

with the Business Community (Nall)

Number of Prime

Problem Sponsors Citing Problem

Little or no response to request for involvement on the Youth Planning Council

or for providing OJT slots

7 Businesses were discouraged by CETA 2

"red tape"

Attempts by the prime sponsor to establish 2

communication were inadequate

Private sector was reluctant to negotiate 1 OJT contracts for 16-17 year old youths

Available OJT slots were inappropriate

since they were mainly low-skilled and

seasonal in nature

1

Note: Multiple problems may have been mentioned by a prime sponsor;

thus, the number of responses will exceed somewhat the

number of prime sponsors.

126
-116-

were related to busines' reluctznce to get involved in YEDPA activities due to the "red tape" (paperoor:0 associated with such involvement and to specific difficulties in developing OJT slots. These

problems sometimes involved obtaining OJT slots for selected subgroups

of participants (16-17 year olds) and in generating OJT slots that

offered the participant a chance to acquire skills and a stable job

upon termination from the program.

A relatively high proportion of the prime sponsors did indicate

in their Year End Reports that they expected to work more closely

with the business community during FY '79. In addition, a few prime

sponsors outlined their strategies for securing more active participation of the business community in OJT activities under YETP. One

prime sponsors revealed that it would adopt a strategy of linking its

YEDPA work experience and OJT activities more closely during FY '79:

"It was generally felt that if OJT is to be successful, it

should be preceded by a long-term work experience component.

If properly implemented, the enrollment in work experience

should provide the participant with the basic work habits

necessary to successfully complete OJT."

The impact of private sector linkages upon increasing the "quality"

of jobs obtained by YEDPA program participants was typically not discussed by prime sponsors. The city of Chicago prime sponsor was one

of the few that did attempt to address this issue within.it'sEnd of

Year Report. This prime sponsor claimed that its Vocational Exploration Program (VEP) was successful not only in improving the work habits

and attitudes of participants, but also in significantly increasing the

likelihood of YETP participants being placed into unsubsidized employment upon their .termination from the program. The EYR did not, however,

provide any quantitatiie comparisons of placements resulting from its

VEP program with those from its other youth programs, including Title I

work experience.
-117-

Only a few prime sponsors provided any discussion of the number

or proportion of YETP and YCCIP participants who were placed into unsubsidized jobs upon termination. The general absence of information

on the short-term outcomes of YETP and YCCIP programs constituted a

serious shortcoming of the Year End Reports. In fairness to the prime

sponsors, the instructions for preparing the EYR's never explicitly

referred to the need for presenting data on the termination status of

YETP and YCCIP participants. In the absence of such information, the

issue of private sector influence on the quantity or quality of jobs

obtained by YEDPA terminees cannot be meaningfully addressed. The

instructions for drafting the FY '79 Year End Report must address this

issue in a more direct and forthright manner. Further discussions of

this issue will be presented in a section of this report on the immediate and short-term outcomes of YETP and YCCIP programs.

P3
-11.8-

Youth Program Supplementation

The sixth principle of the Youth Planning Charter was related to issues

of overhead costs of YEDPA programs and the provision of supplementary services

to YEDPA program operators by other local employment and training-related

agencies. The sixth principle of the Youth Planning Charter stated that "Overhead must be minimized."12 9 While recognizing the need for quality administrative

and supervisory staff and the availability of materials and equipment to operate

effective YEDPA programs, the Charter emphasized that prime sponsors should attempt

to utilize administrative staff, supervisors, materials and equipment of existing

employment and training programs, including CETA Title II and VI programs, in

operating their local YETP and YCCIP programs. Given the purpose of YEDPA "to

serve youth," the Youth Charter noted that "It is vital that every reasonable

economy and coordination be achieved."

130

The YEDPA act itself referred several time to the desirability of prima

sponsors selecting YETP and YCCIP projects that would utilize materials and supplies of existing programs without cost131 . The rules and regulations for YCCIP

programs emphasized the fact that project applicants should attempt to secure their

supplies and materials elsewhere and placed a maximum limit of 5% of project

funds for administrative costs

132

. As noted earlier, the instructions for preparing the End of Year Reports, were

quite confusing with .respect to the issues of substitution and supplementation. The

two issues though quite distinct from one another in both substance and the types

of information needed to shed insights into them were combined into one overall

issue in the instructions format. The instructions did, however, suggest to prime

sponsors that they discuss the extent to which their YEDPA programs were provided

with services from other agencies, including staff, materials, and equipment, and

to note additional staffing required to carry out new agreements with other employ133

ment and training agencies under YEDPA, particularly the LEA agreements.

129
-139-

Approximately two-thirds of the prime sponsors whose EYR's were reviewed

during the course of this study provided some information on the provision of

services from other agencies. The quality of this information tended, however,

to vary substantially. The remainder either provided no discussion of issues

related to principle number six of the Youth Planning Charter or simply mentioned

the fact that they made efforts to minimize overhead without providing any information on the nature or magnitude of services that they may have received from

134

other agencies. Of those prime sponsors providing a more substantive discussion

of the program supplementation issue, between 80% and 90% mentioned that they

had received some type of assistance without cost from other agencies in operating

their local YEDPA programs. Several of those prime sponsors revealing that they

had not received such services during FY 78 indicated that their FY 79 YCCIP and

YETP programs would be receiving some types of supplementation from other local

employment and training agencies. For example, one prime sponsor remarked that:

"In 1978 all material, supplies, and staff costs were budgeted under

YCCIP...Planning and operations cooperation with city departments,

county departments and on-going non-profit agency rehabilitaion projects will be sought during FY 79 to increase the likelihood that

administrative, supervisory, and equipment resources can be secured

in exchange for provision of YCCIP youth workers."

A wide variety of services from other agencies were utilized by prime sponsors

in operating their FY 78 YETP and YCCIP programs. The four most frequently mentioned typ.,.s of contributions were materials and supplies (including weatherization

materials from the Community Services Administration and various State Energy Departments), office space and equipment (including those provided by LEA's), participants in Title II and VI Public Service Employment programs to act as supervisors

for youth participating in YETP and YCCIP projects, and administrative staff,

including counselors, teachers, and clerical employees from LEA's. Other types of

13
-120-

services cited by prime sponsors included the use of unsubsidized public sector

employees as supervisors for YETP and YCCIP projects, private sector employees

as supervisors for VEP program participants, and legal and other consulting

services from str.te and local government agencies. Several prime sponsors indicated that the selection of CBO's as delivery agents for their YETP and YCCIP programs assisted them in minimizing overhead costs. As one prime sponsor remarked,

"CBO's are utilized to minimize overhead in that many are already serving the

disadvantaged so it is only a matter of adding services for disadvantaged youth."

A few prime sponsors also indicated that they 'would alter their administrative

structure for youth programs during FY 79 to help reduce overhead costs. One

prime sponsor remarked that:

"The success of this (minimization of overhead) was not complete in that

a dual administrative structure existed for the majority of the CETA youth

programs in the Prime Sponsor's area. This was caused by extremely large

Title I programs already in existence...

...The prime sponsor intends to keep attempting to minimize its overhead

by linking its subgrants to funds provided from other sources, and at the

same time go to a single administrative structure within each subgrantee

for all youth programs."

Several prime sponsors claimed that the in-kind services provided by other

agencies were crucial to the operations of their YEDPA programs. For example,

one prime sponsor stated that "The program could not have survived without the

in-kind contributions." For the most part, however, only a few prime sponsors

provided any estimate of the monetary value of the in-kind contributions received

from other agencies. The New York Balance of State Prime Sponsor asked its subgrantees to provide estimates of the cost savings from such services. Only 5 of

the 32 counties surveyed provided estimates of the value of such contributions,
-121-

and they ranged in size from $2500 to $20,000. To obtain more detailed insights

into the nature and role of such in-kind contributions, the instructions for the

FY 79 Year End Report should be redesigned to require prime sponsors to report

more specific information on the types of services received, the types of agencies

providing such service, and estimates (however rough) of their monetary value.

Trends in the quantity and nature of such supplementary services should also be

described.

Approximately two-thirds of the prime sponsors included in this study failed

to provide any discussion of the issue regarding additional staff requirements

to carry out new agreements with other agencies, including LEA's. The bulk of

the remaining prime sponsors (80%) did indicate that some new staffing was required

as a result of such agreements. Among the staff hired for such purposes were

coordinators for programs offering specialized educational services to in-school

youth under YET', counselors in LEA's, assistant directors to link with local

schools under the LEA agreement, and project specialists to work with unsubsidized

vocational education teachers in administering in-school YETP programs. A number

of other prime sponsors indicated that they utilized Title II and Title VI PSE

employees to assist in the administration of their LEA agreements. The costs

of these additional staff in either an absolute dollar amount or as a share of the

total YETP and YCCIP budget were never described by prime sponsors in their End

of Year Reports.

The Youth Planning Charter noted that the basic goals of youth programs are

to some extent in competition with one another. This seems to be particularly true

of the basic YEDPA goals of providing immediate employment opportunities for youth

and enhancing their long-run employability through the provision of intensive and

extensive educational and training services. The Charter emphasized the fact that,
-122--

"It is necessary to strike a balance between immediate employment and longer135

term employability development."

Given the importance of obtaining knowledge of the nature of the tradeoffs

between the above two youth program goals, it would have been desirable for

prime sponsors to have provided a discussion of this issue in their Year End

136

Reports. The instructions for the FY 79 Year End Reports should request prime

sponsors to discuss their views on the extent to which existing rules and regula-.

tions on administrative costs (and maximum durations of program participation)

for YETP and YCCIP programs may have hindered their ability to enhance the longer137

term employability of disadvantaged youth. Prime sponsors' recommendations

for changes in these rules and regulations should also be solicited to help guide

the future design of legislation for the nation's youth employment and training

system.
-123-

Youth Program Coordination

The ninth principle oZ the Youth Planning Charter stated that "The development of a separate employment and training delivery system for youth is not

encouraged. "138 The Charter suggested that prime sponsors should make efforts

to coordinate their YEDPA-related programs with other local CETA activities for

youth, particularly those under Title I, and should attempt to tie their YEDPArelated activities into those offered by other local youth service delivery agents. 139

As noted earlier, YEDPA funds were to be viewed by prime sponsors as "glue money"

to tie together existing pieces of the local employment and training system and to

fill in existing gaps in services. 140

The YEDPA Act contained a number of provisions calling for the coordination

of YEDPA activities with both other CETA programs for youth and the programs of

other local employment and training agencies serving youth. Section 346 (a)(2)

o2 the Act stated that the grant applicant should "include assurances that the

application will be coordinated to the maximum extent feasible with the plans

submitted under Title I." In accord with Section 346 (a)(3), prime sponsors

were also to provide assurances that their YETP programs would be conducted in

close cooperation with LEA's, post-secondary educational institutions,.communitybased organizations, private businesses, unions, job training programs, other youth

programs, and the apprenticeship system. In addition, Section 346 (c)(5) of the

Act noted that in-school youth enrolled in a work expereince activity were to be

informed of the existence of other CETA-related employment and training services

and the availability of other non-CETA resources in the community that could potentially be of assistance to them in securing unsubsidized jobs.

The rules and regulations noted that YETP and YCCIP programs were designed in

part to "help coordinate and improve existing career development, employment and

training programs.141

The coordination of YEDPA resources with other locally

available services for youth was believed to be necessary to achieve the goal of
-124-

delivering high quality services to youth under the act, given the limited

additional resources made available for serving youth under the Act.

The instructions for drafting the End of Year Reports were quite brief on the issue of youth program coordination. The instructions suggested that prime

sponsors include a discussion of the nature and extent of coordination between

their YEDPA programs and their CETA Title I programs. Relationships between

YEDPA and "other programs" serving youth, including federal, state, and local

programs, were also to be discussed in the EYR's.142 The instructions were,

however, not specific as to whether these "other programs" were to include only

employment and training programs, or education programs, economic development

programs, juvenile justice programs, social welfare programs, etc.

Approximately 80% of the prime sponsors whose Year End Reports were reviewed

during the course of this study provided some discussion of the nature and/or

dagree cf coordination that existed between their YET? and YCCIP programs and

their Title I employment and training programs. These discussions were, however,

frequently quite limited in scope, with the typical Year End Report providing

less than one-half page of material on this topic. The most frequently cited

types of coordination (in order of their relative frequency) were referrals of

YEDPA program terminees to Title I activities, referrals of Title I program

participants to YEDPA programs, the existence of joint intake and eligibility

determination functions for both programs, and the referral of YEDPA program terminees to the Summer Program for Economically Disadvantaged Youth (SPEDY). Very

few (less than 10%) of the End of Year Reports provided any substantive quantitative or qualitative details on the magnitude or nature of such linkages or their

effects on the delivery of quality services to youth. Data on the number of intertitle transfers between YEDPA and other CETA Titles as well as information on the
-125-

nature of such transfers would have been helpful in gauging the extent of

coordination between local YETP and YCCIP programs and other CETA-related

employment and training programs, particularly Title I. The data on inter-title

transfers from the fourth quarter FT 78 Youth Program Status Summary could

have been used to shed greater insights into the coordination issue.

Several prime sponsors did admit that they experienced problems in coordinating

their YEDPA programs withr.their CETA Title I programs due to the lack of sufficient planning time and the need for rapid program start-up. A few otheL prime

sponsors also indicated that their planned levels of youth enrollments in Title

I programs fell short of expectations due to competition from YEDPA and other

youth programs. For example, one prime sponsor noted that:

"Recruitment of youth ,.;4s not as effective as planned due to increased

activity in other programs (Job Corps, YACC) for out of school youth."

Approximately cne-third of the prime sponsors did indicate that they intended

to increase their program coordination efforts in FY 79, including more transfers

between YEDPA and Title I programs,increased referrals of YEDPA terminees to SPEDY

and Job Corps Programs, and joint sharing of staff administering YEDPA and Title

I programs. One prime sponsor, while noting its limited success in achieving such

coordination during FY 78, stated that it was "retaining its goal of integrating

youth programs with the YETP and YCCIP structure, thereby making YETP and YCCIP

a' coordinating activity for all of its youth programs."

Only 60% of the prime sponsors discussed the existence of linkages between

their YEDPA programs and other youth serving agencies in their local area. The

types of agencies with whom such linkages existed (in order of their relative

frequency) included State Employment Security Agencies (SESA's), community-based

organizations, and local educational agencies. 143

The types of linkages

included referrals of youth by such agencies to YEDPA programs, eligibility deterinitiation services, and the provision of job placement information and assistance

13G
-126-

for YEDPA program terminees. Several of the prime sponsors claimed that substantial progress had been achieved in coordinating YEDPA program operations

with those of other local youth serving agencies. As one prime sponsor noted,

"Success was realized in having virtually all area youth-serving

agencies particip-ting in some way in the operation of local programs."

A number of the p. me sponsors also stated that they would attempt to increase

linkages with other ':)uth-serving.agencies in their area during FY 79. Among the

planned types of coordination mentioned were the increased use of the referral

and job placement services of State Employment Security Agencies, closer linkages

with local community colleges and community-based organizations, and increased

referrals of YEDPA terminees to Job Corps Programs.

In order to improve knowledge of the magnitude and nature of linkages

between YEDPA programs and both other CETA employment and training programs

(particularly Title II B) and programs offered by other local youth service

agencies, the End of Year Reports for FY 79 should provide a more substantive

and detailed discussion of coordination issues. The reporting instructions should

request prim sponsors to provide information on the types of linkages that existed

between their YETP and YCCIP programs and their other CETA programs, such as

common intake, eligibility determination, and assessment services; sharing of

program staff, including counselors, teachers, and job development staff; numbers

of terminees from Title II B programs entering YETP or YCCIP programs and entollments of terminees from YETP b YCCIP programs into programs under other CETA Titles.

As noted earlier, data from the September 30, 1979 Youth Program Status

Summary for YETP and YCCIP programs should be used by the prime sponsor to indicate

the extent of linkages between YEDPA programs and other CETA titles in the form

of transfers into and out of YETP and YCCIP programs from other CETA titles.
-127-

The "Enrollment and Termination Summary" section of the Youth Program Status

Summary does provide data on both the number of enrollees who transferred

into YETP and YCCIP programs from "other Titles" and the number of terminees

from YETP and YCCIP programs who transferred to "other Titles". Information

is not, however, provided on either the specific CETA Title from which such

enrollees entered YETP and YCCIP programs or the specific CETA Title into

which they transferred upon terminating from YETP and YCCIP programs. 144

Such quantitative information would provide more useful insights to both regional

and national policymakers on the degree of coordination between YEDPA and other

CETA employment and training programs. Comparisons between the planned and

actual numbers of such transfers should also be provided by the prime sponsors

in their End of Year Reports for FY 79.

145

Substantial variations between the

planned and actual numbers of transfers (± 15%) should be accompanied by aa

explanation of the factors responsible for such gaps between planned and Actual

performance.

The reporting instructions for the FY 79 Year End Reports should also request

the prime sponsors to provide a more detailed description of the specific types

of linkages that they had developed with other local employment and training

and youth service agencies. These agencies should also be specifically identified,

such as local SESA offices, welfare departments, juvenile courts, CBO's, etc.

While prime sponsors are not required to report data on transfers into or out of

YETP and YCCIP programs from such non-CETA programs or agencies, they should provide some information on the relative importance of the involvement of these other

local agencies in the overall operations of their local YETP and YCCIP programs.

138
-128-

Implementation Issues

The last set of topics that prime sponsors were asked to address in

their Year End Reports for FY 78 YETP and YCCIP programs fell under the

general heading of "Implementation Issues." The following four different

issues were included under this heading: areas of youth program operations

that were hindered by the need for rapid implementation during FY 78 and that

would likely be improved during FY 79; the continuation and bolstering of

"institutional change" efforts during FY 79; the need for technical assistance

and guidance from the regional ETA offices and the national Office of Youth

Programs to strengthen program performance; and the ability of the prime sponsor

to expand its youth program operations in the future. 146

The issue of "institutional change" was itself previously addressed in the

Youth Planning Charter under principle number seven. That principle stated

that "The new youth programs are not the cutting edge for institutional change." 147

The Charter noted that the YEDPA legislation was not intended to "force or buy

reforms" in institutions currently providing services to youth, but simultaneously

indicated a hope that the availability of YEDPA monies at the local le'el would

increase the possibility of achieving desirable institutional changes, particularly

with local school systems. The instructions did not, however, provide any specific

indication of the types of "institutional changes" that prime sponsors were

expected to discuss in their. FY 78 Year End Reports. Institutional change may

have been sought by the prime sponsors not only with local educational agencies,

but also with private sector firms, labor unions, post-secondary educational

institutions, the State Employment Security Agencies, and the juvenile court system.

By providing more specific examples of "institutional change" in the EYR instructions, the Office of Youth Programs may have succeeded in obtaining more detailed

and insightful discussions of such issues. Such specific examples should be

incorporated in the instructions for the preparation of the FY 79 Year End Reports.
-329-

The issue of "capacity to further expand youth programs" is a potentially

critical one, given the current national debates over youth program reauthorization and the future funding levels for such programs. It would, however, have

been desirable if the instructions had spelled out in somewhat more detail the

types of information being sought on prime sponsors' capacities for expanding

their youth programs. For example, information should hau4 been sought not only

on the perceived ability of prime sponsors to serve additional numbers of youth,

but also on the conditions under which such an expansion would be facilitated,

including changes in program eligibility criteria, ccnsolidation of youth programs

at the local level, changes in allowable activities under existing youth programs,

and relationships between CETA prime sponsors and local educational agencies.

Prime sponsor views on the above issues would likely have provided valuable

inputs into the current national debate regarding the future magnitude, direction,

and nature of youth employment and training programs.

Approximately 907, of the prime sponsors did admit that they had encountered

one or more types of problems in implementing their FY 78 YETP and YCCIP programs.

A wide variety of implementation problems were cited by prime sponsors in their

Year End Reports. The types of problems cited most frequently by prime sponsors

were difficulties in developing effective programs with Local Educational Agencies

for in-school youth at a time halfway through the academic year, recruiting

eligible youth for participation in YETP and YCCIP programs, properly assessing

youth, hiring qualified staff to administer the programs, and developing appropriate

worksites for youth, particularly for career employment experience programs under

YETP, Among the other types of implementation problems mentioned by prime sponsors

were delays in obtaining approval of contracts, the need to provide training

to contractor staff with respect to the rules and regulations governing YETP and

14 0
-130-

YCCIP programs, the necessity of developing an effective reporting capability

for contractors, particularly local educational agencies, arranging transportation for program participants, bad weather delaying the onset of hindering

the continuity of YCCIP projects, and difficulties in developing OJT slots for

YETP participants. A more detailed discussion of these latter two problems

was previously presented in prior sections of this report, see pp. 49-58.

Most of the prime sponsors claimed in their Year End Report that they

either had successfully resolved or had begun to resolve the above implementation problems. As a result, they were not expected to adversely affect program

performance during FY 79.

Typical of the remarks made by prime sponsors on this issue were the

following:

"Actual operation did not begin until February, 1978. Many bugs had

to be worked out, but by September 1978 most systems seemed to be

functioning smoothly."

"Although these problems hampered initial success in both YETP and

YCCIP, most of them have been or are being resolved. Foundations

laid in solving these problems should provide a beginning fol new

program relationships and more effective services for youth."

"The first of these problems (new staff for administering YEDPA

programs) is being solved by staff gaining more experience, and the

second (lack of planning time) can be solved by a serious commitment

by the Department of Labor."

"The prime sponsor had difficulties in meeting the goals described in

the Annual Plan due to a late start-up and internal problems created

by administrative reorganization. The Prime Sponsor has gained

experience in operating these programs and will do more realistic

planning as well as implement more stringent administrative controls

in Fiscal Year 1979."
-131-

It should be noted, however, that not all of the implementation problems

cited by prime sponsors were successfully resolved during FY 78, particularly

those related to the creation of quality worksites for career employment

experience program participants or the development of OJT slots in the private

sector for YETP participants. As a result of continuing difficulties, some of

the prime sponsors intended to alter their program services mix during FY 79,

including the reduction or elimination of particular activities, such as OJT.

In addition, several prime sponsors made radical changes in their service delivery

agents during FY 79 in order to enhance the effectiveness of their employment

and training delivery system.

Less than one-half of the prime sponsors provided any discussion of

"institutional change" activities that they intended to continue or strengthen

during FY 79. The remainder of the prime sponsors failed to address this issue

in their Year End Report. Almost all of these discussions, however, tended

to be quite brief, with most prime sponsors simply mentioning an activity

(developing working relationships with an LEA) without adequately describing

the objectives of these "institutional change" efforts or the outcomes of such

efforts during FY 78. Among the types of "institutional change" efforts cited

in this section of the Year End Report were the development of close working

relationships with local educational agencies for the first time since the

inception of CETA, changes in the enrollment policies of selected local high

schools and post-secondary educational and training institutions, the more active

involvement of CBO's in the delivery of employment and training services to inschool and out-of-school youth, the establishment of satellite SESA job placement

offices in local high schools, the provision of academic credit for work experience, and labor union cooperation in obtaining access into apprenticeable trades

for selected terminees from YCCIP projects.

112
-132-

Given the lack of any detailed discussion of the nature,oscope, or

success of these various institutional Change efforts, the information presented

by prime sponsors in their Year End Reports was quite limited in its usefulness

for understanding prime sponsors' performance in this area during FY 78. These

types of activities may, however, be among the more valuable long-lasting contributions of YEDPA programs. Such institutional change processes may well yield

a long-term influence on the delivery of employment and training services to

economically disadvantaged youth. For example, in a recent study of YEDPA program operations in Texas and New Mexico, Vernon Briggs concluded that:

"Clearly the most important accomplishment of YEDPA to date has been

its efforts to alter local institutional arrangements. YEDPA has

brought the school systems into the CETA system in more than simply

a service capacity. The schools have had the opportunity to use their

YEDPA funds to enrich some things they were already doing; to undertake innovative programs that they could not do in its absence; and

to involve themselves in CETA In a year round manner that was largely

limited before to a summer time commitment."148

Given the potential significance of such "institutional change" efforts,

we would recommend that the Office of Youth Programs include a separate section

on "institutional change" activities in the FY 79 Year End Reports on YEDPA

programs. Prime sponsors should be asked to provide specific information on the

scope and nature of their "institutional change" act 7ities, the objectives

of these institutional change efforts, outcomes of these efforts during FY 79,

and their plans for continuing or strengthening sucl. .:iforts during FY 80.

The existence of any relationships between th, Age development activities

of the prime sponsor and these "institutional change" efforts should also be

described. Formal reports on the findings of such knowledge development activities

should be forwarded together with the Year End Report to the regional office of

ETA and to the national Office of Youth Programs.
F-wer than one-fourth of the prime sponsors provided any discussion of

their need for technical assistance from either regional ETA offices or the

national Office of Youth Programs, This finding should not necessarily be

interpreted as indicating no need for technical assistance by the vast majority

of the 57 prime sponsors whose Year End Reports were reviewed during the course of this study. 149

The technical assistance issue was simply not addressed

by the remaining three-fourths of the prime sponsors.

Practically all of the prime sponsors providing some discussion of the

technical assistance issue did indicate a need for some form of technical assistance. These technical assistance needs were, however, quite varied in nature,

including assistance in the areas of youth program planning techniques, methods

for developing agreements with local educational agencies regarding the awarding

of academic credit for work experience, methods for developing appropriate

OJT slots for youth in the private for-profit sector, model youth programs for

rural prime sponsors, procedures for obtaining active union involvement in the

planning and design of youth programs, techniques for monitoring and evaluating

youth program performance, and techniques for designing and implementing local

knowledge development activities, Several of these prime sponsors also expressed

a desire for a forum to share their experiences in planning and operating youth

programs with other prime sponsors in their region and other regions of the nation.

The instructions for drafting the FY 79 Year End Reports on YETP and YCCIP

programs should be structured in a manner that would elicit additional information

from prime sponsors on their technical assistance needs. Prime sponsors should

be asked to identify those areas in which some form of technical assistance is

needed, to provide brief descriptions of the type of technical assistance needed,

and to note whether Wof previous assistance had been provided to them in these

1 A .g
-134 -

areas, including the source of.such assistance (regional office, national

office, other prime sponsors, etc.) It may well be that prime sponsors are

reluctant to openly express a need for technical assistance in their End of Year

Reports, fearing that such a request may be interpreted as a sign of weak or

ineffective management. Further requests for such information on

current technical assistance needs should be accompanied by a statement

indicating that the findings will be used by the regional and national

offices solely to determine priorities for funding future prime sponsor

technical assistance activities. This section of the Year End Report should

be reviewed by the regional ETA offices' Management Assistance Units to provide

them with guidance in their efforts to bolster prime sponsor management

capability.

Less than 40% of the 57 prime sponsors whose Year End Reports were reviewed

during the course of this study provided some discussion of their "capacity" to

expand their youth program activities. Of those prime sponsors that did provide

some discussion of this issue, approximatley 907.. indicated a capability of

expanding their current youth program operations. These discussions were typically

quite brief, often consisting of a statement of the prime sponsor's general

ability and willingness to expand the scope of its youth program operations. The

prime sponsors generally failed to provide specific information on the desired

magnitude or nature of such an expansion. Typical of the comments made by prime

sponsors on the issue of expansion capability were the following:

"We could support a substantial increase in participant activity

with. the provision of increased funds, particularly for YCCIP."

"The prime sponsor has the capability of greatly increasing the

size of the programs. Funds for YEDPA programs should he greatly

increased."

"As for the future, the capacity for further expansion is limited

only by the funds available."
-135-

Those prime sponsors indicating the need for and desirability of expanding

youth program activities frequently suggested that such an expansion should be

accompanied by changes in the planning. and operations of youth programs. Several

prime sponsors pointed out the need for more lead time in planning any expansion

of YEDPA programs. Other prime sponsors were concerned about the constraints

placed upon expansion by existing eligibility criteria, (e.g., the more limited

age range under YCCIP), the potential difficulties of developing additional

appropriate work experience and training slots for youth, and the need for additional time to evaluate the programs they now had in place before future expansion

occurred. Only a few prime sponsors outlined the directions in .hich they would

expand existing employment and training services for youth. Those providing

such information cited the need for greater resources to be devoted to YCCIP

programs, improved counseling services to in-school youth, more job development

staff located within the schools, and job search training for youth. One prime

sponsor expressed the following view with respect to desired expansion:

"The prime sponsor staff also feels that additional funding for YCCIP

should be made available. In terms of providing out-of-school youth

with exposure to the 'world of work' and development of job skills

which will lead to unsubsidized employment, YCCIP was much more valuable."

To improve existing knowledge of prime sponsors' views regarding the desirability of future expansion of youth programs, the reporting instructions for the

FY 79 Year End Reports should request more specific information on these issues.

Prime sponsors should be asked to not only discuss their views on the desirability

of an expansion of existing YEDPA-related programs in their area, but also to

assess their capability for expanding current activities under existing program

rules and regulations, to describe the types of rules and regulation changes that

would facilitate an expansion of services to economically disadvantaged youth in

116
136-

their area, and to outline the directions in wnich they would move (both

in terms of target groups and mix of services) if additional YEDPA monies

were made available to them. Such information would likely prove to be highly

useful to public,policymAkers and youth program officials engaged in the

current youth program reauthorization process.
-137-

Short-Term Outcomes of YETP and fCCIP Programs

Programs funded by prime sponsors under the Youth Employment and

Demonstration Projects Act of 1977 were expected to provide immediate

employment opportunities for youth and to enhance their long-term

employability through the provision of a wide range of employment and

150

training services to participants. One may, however, not expect the

employability effects of these services to be felt by participants

immediately upon termination from a local YETP or YCCIP program. The

primary immediate objectives of a prime sponsor's youth employment

and training programs may be more closely related to the return to school

151

or the continuation in school by program terminees. Information on the

numbers and types of terminations from YETP and YCCIP programs, particularly those entering unsubsidized employment during FY '78, would,

however, have been a useful audition to the Year EILd Reiwrts of priwt

sponsors.

Nowhere in the instructions for drafting the Year End Reports on

FY '78 YETP and YCCIP programs was any reference made to the numbers

and types of terminations from those programs. This omission nay have

been deliberate, given the emphasis of the Year End Reports on the

"qualitative" aspects of performance and the availability of enrollment

and termination data for such programs on the fourth quarter FY '78 Youth

Program Summary and Quarterly Summary of Youth Characteristics. Nevertheless, we feel that the absence of a section of the EYR being devoted

to the short-term outcomes of FY '78 programs constituted a serious

shortcoming of the Year End Reports. The absence of discussions of

short-term outcomes deprived the regional offices of ETA and the

National Office of Youth Programs of an additional source of key information on prime sponsor YETP and YCCIP program performance during FY '78.

1I
-138 -

As a result of the absence of any specific requests for information

on the numbers and types of terminations from YETP and YCCIP programs,

the bulk of the prime sponsors failed to provide any qualitative or

quantitative information on the numbers and types of terminations.

Only one-third of the prime sponsors presented any data on the numbers

of YETP program terminees entering unsubsidized employment during FY

'78. (See Table II-40) A few of the other prime sponsors made passing

remarks on their placement performance, but failed to provide any data

to support their contentions. For example, one prime sponsor simply

stated:

"We did manage to serve a considerable number of youths with

an excellent placement result."

Only 13 of the 57 prime sponsors provided data on both the total

number of YETP terminations and the number of such terminees entering

unsubsidized employment. The proportion of terminees entering unsubsidized employment in these thirteen prime sponsor planning areas

varied quite considerably (Table 11-41), ranging from a low of 9.0%

to a high of 62.0% with a median of approximately 26.0%.

Only nine prime sponsors provided information about the nature of

problems which they experienced in placing YETP participants into

unsubsidized employment. Most of those prime sponsors providing such

information experienced problems relatedto either job placement staff

or the youths themselves. Eight of the problems cited by prime sponsors

in placing YETP terminees were related to the nature of their programs

or to problems with job development staff. One half of this group attributed poor job development efforts by YETP staff as a major obstacle

to the placement of youths upon completion of the program. Two prime

sponsors mentioned that poor placement was due to the absence of close

ties between YETP training and work experience and available local job
Table 11-40:

Table I I -41:

-139-

Number of Prire. Sponsors Providing

Data on the NuMber of Unsubsidized

Placements from FY 78 YETP Programs (N=57)

Placement

Data Status

Number of

Prime Sponsors

Percent

Of Total

Did provide

placement data 19 33.3%

Did not provide

placement data 38 66.7%

Total 57 100.0%

Distribution of Prime Sponsors by_

Entering Employment Rate for FY 78

YETP Programs (N=13)

Entering

Employment

Rate

(A)

Number Of

Prime Sponsors

(B)

Percent

Of Total

0 - 10% 1 7.7%

11 - 20% 4 30.8%

21 - 30% 5 38.4%

31 - 50% 2 15.4%

51% + 1 7.7%

Total 13 100.0%

Range = 9% to 62%

Median = 26%

15.0
Table 11-42:

Type of Problem

Late Start-up of

-14UProblems Enco'Intered by Prime

Sponsors in acing YETP

Participants into Unsubsidized

Jobs (N=9)

(A) (B)

Number of % of

Prime Sponsors* Prime Sponsors

Program 1 11.1%

Training not

Relevant to

Existing Employment Opportunities 2 22.2%

Poor Job Development

by YETP Staff 4 44.4%

Lack of Coordination

with Local SESA Offices 2 22.2%

Limited Previous

Work Experience of

Youth 4 44.4%

Migration of YETP

Youth out of Local

Area 1 11.1%

Limited Youth Interest

in Occupational Areas

in which Jobs were

Available/Poor Screening

of Applicants for Skills

Training Participation 3 33.3%

*Note: Multiple responses were allowed; thus,

the column totals will exceed the number of prime sponsors citing problems

in placing YETP participants into unsubsidized employment.
-141-

opportunities. In addition, eight other problems cited by prime sponsors involved the youths themselves. Pour of these prime sponsors

indicated that the limited pre-YETP work experience of participating

youths adversely inflenced the ability of prime sponsor staff successfully to place youth into non-subsidized employment (See Table 11-42).

Prime sponsors' discussions of YCZIP program placement performance

were similar to those observed for YETP. Again only one-third of the

Year-End Reports provided date on the number of YCCIP program terminees

entering unsubsidized employment during FY '78(See Table 11-43). In

only 12 of the 57 Year-End Reports prepared by prime sponsors was information provided about both the total number of terminations and the

number of terminees entering unsubsidized employment from the local

YCCIP program. Entering employment rates for these 12 prime sponsors

ranged from a low of 0% to a high of 58% with a mean of about 23 (See

Table if- 44).

As with YETP, nine prime sponsors provided information about

problems encountered in placing YCCIP participants into unsubsidized

jobs. The reasons provided by prime sponsors for placement difficulties

unJer YCCIP, however, were more varied than those supplied for YETP.

Four prime sponsors focused their discussion on the YCCIP worksite, with

two indicating that YCCIP worksite tasks were not closely related to

existing job opportunities and an additional two prime sponsors indicating that poor worksite supervision hindered participants' ability

to enter unsubsidized employment (See Table 11-45).

Remaining problems in placement for YCCIP included a high early

non-positive termination rate, limited placement experience of service

delivery, coordination problems with local SESA offices, and the limited

pre-YCCIP work experience of participating youth (See Table 11-45).

Year-End Reports prepared by prime sponsor staff in the future

15^
TableII- 431

Tablerl

-142-

Number of Prime Sponsors Providing

Data on the Number of Unsubsidized

Placements from FY 78 YCCIP Programs (N=57)

(A) (B)

Placement

Data Status

Number Of

Prime Sponsors

Percent

Of Total

Did provide

placement data 19 33.3%

Did not provide

placement data 38 66.7%

Total 57 100.0%

Distribution of Prime Sponsors by

Entering Employment Rate for. FY 78

YCCIP Programs (N=12)

Entering

Employ tent

Rate

(A)

Number Of

Prime Sponsors

(B)

Percent

Of Total

0 - 10% 4 33.3%

11 - 20% 1 8.3%

21 - 30% 5 41.7%

31 - 50% 1 8.3%

51% + 1 8.3%

Total 12 100.0%

Range = 0% to 58%

Median = 23%
Table 11-45:

Type of Problem

-143-

Problems Encountered by Prime Sponsors

in Placing YCCIP Particioants into

Unsubsidized Jobs (N=7)

(A) (B)

Number of % of

Prime Sponsors* Prime Sponsors

YCCIP Work Sites not

Closely Related to

Existing Job Opportunities 2 28.6%

Lack of Adequate

Work Site Supervision 2 28.6%

High Early Non-Positive

Terminations 1 14.3%

Limited Job Placement

Experience of Service

Deliverers 1 14.3%

Lack of Coordination

Between Proaram Operators and Local SESA

Offices 1 14.3%

Difficulties in Placing

YCCIP Terminees into

Local Union Apprenticeship 1 Limited Previous Work

Experience of Youth 1 *Note: Multiple responses were allowed, thus,

the totals appearing under the columns

will exceed the number of prime sponsors

citing problems in placing YCCIP terminees into unsubsidized jobs.

15z1

14.3%

14.3%
-144-

should include a discussion of the nature of job development and

placement activities as well as problems encountered in placing youth

into unsubsidized jobs. In addition, a discussion of the previous

year's (FY '79) placement problems should be included together with

a focus upon remedies employed in the current year's program (FY '80)

to overcome the specific placement problem(s) outlined in the report.

Data on the planned number of. terminations and the planned number of

unsubsidized placements were seldom presented by prime sponsors in

their EYR's; thus comparisons of planned versus actual numbers of

placements could not be made. It should be noted, however, that

several prime sponsors mentioned that the placement data available

to them at the time of the drafting of their EYR's (prior to the availability of fourth quarter FY '78 data) were not "meaningful" since many

of the youths participating in employment-oriented' training programs

were still enrolled in those programs. The nature of the timing of

these EYR's may, therefore, have adversely affected the extent of the

reporting of termination and job placement data by prime sponsors.

We strongly recommend to the National Office of Youth Programs

that the guidelines for the drafting of the FY '79 Year-End Reports on

YETP and YCCIP programs include a request for specific information on

the numbers and types of terminations from YETP and YCCIP programs.

The data provided by prime sponsors should include both the planned

and actual numbers of terminees and the planned and actual total

numbers of positive terminations, with further breakouts of those

entering unsubsidized employment. The data so provided should be

based upon the fourth quarter FY '79 Youth Program Status Summary

152

and the Quarterly Summar. of Youth Characteristics. The existence

of any substantial gaps (±10%) between planned and actual numbers of

total positive terminations and unsubsidized placements should be ex-
-145-

plained by the prime sponsor, including a discussion of the actions

that will be undertaken during FY '80 to improve the overall entering

employment rate.

Inclusion of information on the planned vs. actual entering employment rate, as well as explanation of substantial differences in

such rates, would aid not only national and regional office analysts,

but would likely prove useful to individuals planning youth programs

at the local level. The CETA planning process at the local level

takes place well before information from the current year's youth

programs becomes available. Consequently, if data on planned vs.

actual entering employment rates by program were included within the

previous year's EYR, together with a description of problems encountered

in meeting those planned rates, local CETA planners would be able to

base their future youth programs on previous operating experiences.

Such information would prove particularly valuable in del;eloping

realistic entering employment rate goals as well as examining the

strengths and weaknesses of job development and placement efforts

at the local level.

The prime sponsor should also be required to provide a brief

overview of the nature and scope of the job placement services that

were available to YETP and YCCIP terminees, including formal linkages

with local offices of the State Employment Security Agencies. A discussion of the,types of placements (direct, indirect, and obtained

employment) together with information on the characteristics of jobs

obtained by terminees, such as occupations of employment, hourly wages,

and hours of work, would also be desirable. Finally, the prime sponsor

should indicate whether or not it conducts formal follow-up of its

terminees and, if so, should provide a brief overview of the nature

of the follow-up survey, e.g., types of information collected, frequency,

15c
-146-

and timing of the survey. 153

The potential usefulness of the qualitative and quantitative

information on the job placement performance of YETP and YCCIP programs

should not be underestimated. As noted earlier, these programs were intended

not only to provide immediate subsidized employment opportunities for partici-

. pants, but also to enhance their longer-term employment prospects. The YEDPA

legislation itself stated, "... its (YEDPA's) purpose is to provide youth,

particularly economically disadvantaged youth, with opportunities to learn and

earn that will lead to meaningful employment opportunities after they have

completed the program. "154 Knowledge of the ability of such programs to

successfully transition terminees into unsubsidized employment would serve as

one indicator of at least their short-term effectiveness in enhancing the

employability of participants. In addition, a number of the prime sponsors

claimed in their EYR's that placement into unsubsidized employment was a primary

objective of their programs. As one prime sponsor noted,

"The new youth programs under YEDPA have a different emphasis:

that of preparing the youth for unsubsidized employment."
-147-

FY 78 YEDPA Program Evaluation Activities

of Prime Sionsors

In a previous subsection of this report (see pp. 74-93), the FY 78

knowledge development activities of prime sponsors were briefly described,

including problems that they encountered in developing a substantive knowledge

development strategy. This section of the report is designed to describe

the nature and extent of the FY 78 program evaluation activities of prime

sponsors and to assess the factors limiting their ability to undertake more

comprehensive evaluations of their local-YEDPA programs.

The Year End Reports of the 57 prime sponsors were reviewed to determine

whether "any mention" of an evaluation activity had been made. 155

The findings

of this review are summarized in Table II-46below. The finCings reveal that

only 20 of the 57 prime sponsors, or 35.1%, indicated that they had undertaken some type of evaluation of their FY 78 YEDPA programs. The remainder

either admitted that they had not undertaken any evaluation activity or entirely

failed to discuss this issue in their Year End Reports.

Table II .46: Did Prime Sponsor Conduct Any

Evaluations of its FY 78 YEDPA

Programs? (N = 57)

(A) (B)

Number of Percent Of

Response Prime Sponsors Prime Sponsors .01 Yes 20 35.1%

No/No Mention 37 64.9%

Total 57 100.0%

The specific types of program evaluation activities undertaken by prime

sponsors are listed in Table 1140. The most frequently mentioned type of

153
-148-

evaluation activity (oited by 9 of the 20 prime sponsors) was that_ of N,0:su:--1

and analyzing immediate outcomes of YEDPA programs, including the n..:mocl-i;

positive terminations and the number entering unsubsidized employmowi

versus actual comparisonsof immediate outcomes were also conducted, 'iciluoing

some analysis of th' relative effectiveness of alternative YEDPA programs in

producing positive terminations; e.g., YCCIP vs. YETP program performance in

obtaining unsubsidized jobs for terminees. Three other prime sponsors indicated

that their evaluation efforts entailed a comparison of the immediate outcomes

of YEDPA programs with those of Title I youth programs to determine whether

the new program approaches adopted under YEDPA were more effective in producing

positive terminations and unsubsidized employment opportunities for participants.

A number of prime sponsors concentrated their FY 78 evaluation efforts on

selected pre-post test score comparisons. Three prime sponsors indicated that

their evaluation efforts included pre-post testing of selected YEDPA participants

to determine changes in educational abilities, particularly reading comprehension

and general math ability. 156 Three prime sponsors conducted pre-post tests of

participants' personality traits and attitudes, including self-confidence, locus

of control, and attitudes toward work. Three additional prime sponsors

conducted pre-post tests of participants' knowledge of the world of work, including knowledge of particular jobs (job duties, hiring requirements, wages).

and jobseeking skills.

finally, six prime sponsors claimed to have been involved in conducting

follow-up surveys of YEDPA program participants to determine their post - program

labor force, employment, and educational experiences. Detailed information on

either the nature and structure of the questionnaires or the timing and frequency

of the surveys was seldom provided by prime sponsors in their Year End Reports.
Table II - 47: Type of Program Evaluation Activity

Undertaken by Prime Sponsors (N-7=70)

Type of (A)

:.valuation Number of

_Activity Prime Sponsors

Measure and Analyze Immediate Outcomes;

Planned vs. actual Comparisons of

Immediate Outcomes

Compare YEDPA Programs' Immediate Outcomes

with those of CETA Title I Youth

Pros7rams

Pre-Post Comparisons of Educational Test

Scores'

Pre -Past Comparisons of Personality and

Attitudinal Test Scores

Pre-Post Comparisons of Occupational

Information/World of Work Test Scores

Follow-up Surveys of YEDPA Program

Participants

9

3

3

3

3

6

* Note: Multiple responses were allowed; thus, numbers appearing under

Column A will exceed the total number of prime sponsors (20)

undertaking an evaluation activity.

160
-isn -

The dincussions of evaluation methodologies presented by prime sponsors

in their Year End Reports were characterized by substantial differences in

length, content, and utility. In some instances, the discussion simply consisted of a few sentences of text:while in other instances the prime sponsor

devoted several pages to the issue of evaluation methodologies.

More specifically, Lhe discussions of evaluaLion methodologies could be

classified into one or more of the following categories:

(i) A relatively complete informative discussion of the evaluation

methodology including justification for its use, a description of

how it was implemented, and a review of types of data gollected. Very

few prime sponsors fel] into this category;

(ii) Brief mention of the general type of evaluation that was conducted,

with no further discussion as to why or how it was to be done; e.g.,

"pre-posL comparisons ";

(iii) Brief mention of a type ofmeasurement technique that was to be used

in conducting the evaluation, with little or no explanation of what

it entailed;e.g., "holistic personality scaling";

(iv) Discussion at varying levels of specificity of an evaluation activity

that would take place at sometime in the future;

(v) DisCussion of an intention to develop new techniques for

program success, e.g., "develop techniques for measuring the advancement of an individual participant toward job readiness and employer

acceptability".

The frequently limited and often times confusing discussions of evaluation

methodologies combined with the failure of nearly two-thirds of the prime sponsors

to include any mention of an evaluation methodology revealed quite strongly that
t:, ..st majority of prime sponsors experienced substantial difficulty with

respect to designing, im renting; operating and/or reporting on an evaluation

menodology. These deficiencies seem to be reflective of several different

types of problems encountered by prime sponsors in the knowledge development

area. Among these problems are the following:

(i) The inability of a prime sponsor to turn an initially well thoughtout inquiry into a practical learning activity due to a lack of

knowledge or incomplete understanding of appropriate program

evaluation techniques.

(ii) The prime sponsor may have had a more complete understanding of

appropriate evaluation techniques, but lacked sufficient resources in terms of time, money, staff availability, or staff technical

expertise to successfully undertake an inquiry process.

(iii) The lack of specificity and direction provided by the EYR reporting

instructions. Some prime sponsors may have been confused by the

instructions for reporting knowledge development activities and,

thus, failed to report properly on their actual evaluation ac- tivities during FY 78.

Analysis of_Evaluation Findings

The final knowledge development related issue which prime sponsors were

asked to address in their End of Year Reports was an analysis of the findings

of their evaltlAtion efforts.A prelithinary analysis of the material presented

by prime sponsors revealed that this discussion of findings could not be

limited only to those prime sponsors who had previously described an evaluation

methodology. The review of the Year End Reports revealed that several prime
-152-

sponsors made statements about overall program success without ever discussing

the use of an evaluation methodology to produce those findings. 157

Table 11-48 reveals that of the 38 prime sponsors who were identified as ostensibly understanding the K.D. mandate only 13 (34%) mentioned any preliminary results or findings. 158

The remaining 25 prime sponsors (66%) either

reported no findings or indicated that it was too early to include them as part

of the knowledge development discussion.

Table II - 48:

Number of Prime Sponsors Reporting Preliminary Findings or Final

Evaluation Results in the K.D. Section of the Year End Report (N = 37)

Did Prime Sponsor Report Findings?

(A)

Number

(A)

Percent

Yes 13 34.2%

No (no explanation) *4

12 31.6%

No (Too early to include) 13 34.2%

Total 38

The discussions provided by the 12 prime sponsors who did report results

or preliminary findings generally were characterized by one or more of the

following features:

(i) Reporting of findings that appeared to be based upon an analysis

of the findings of the prime sponsors' evaluation effort, e.g.,

"The 'work crew' concept was successful although some problems

were encountered due to the ineffective supervision of youth."

"Non-positive terminations and absenteeism were found tc be more

frequent than hoped." These findings were frequent:1y focused on

the qualitative rather than quantitative aspects of the programs'

performance;
-153-

(ii) Blanket judgements of program success based on evaluation efforts that

had not been previously discussed by the prime sponsor; e.g. "After

research and evaluation of the programs... (the prime sponsor) concludes that this type of program, which offers youth meaningful subsidized employment while providing the community with new or improved

conservation programs, is needed".

(iii) Blanket judgement of program success without any explanation of the

basis for the judgement, e.g., "Sufficient accomplishments were made

in providing effective training and services to area youth.."; "In

a word, despite failures, we reached the unreachable, taught the unteachable, and learned what we needed to do to reach and teach more";

"The prime sponsor...was able to draw vital information from programs

which were operated during FY 78".

The above discussion has attempted to summarize the types of information on

evaluation methods and findings provided by prime sponsors in their Year End

Reports. The review of the Year End Reports revealed a substantial amount of

poorly-focused discussion and a rather high overall degree of non-compliance with

the instructions. It must be stressed, however, that these findings appear to be

symptomatic of a yroblem much greater than prime sponsors' inability to comply with

a set of instructions. They seem in fact to be largely reflective of systemic

organizational/institutional obstacles which make it virtually impossible for prime

sponsor staff to properly carry out substantive knowledge development activities/

which could then in turn provide a basis for'an adequate discussion of the issues

required in the EYR instructions. To briefly summarize, the above discussion

combined with that in the previous knowledge development section identified the

follcming problems faced by prime sponsors in the knowledge development area:
-154-

(j) rcalure to understand the basic underpinnings of knowledge development;

(ii) Limited capacity to take a general understanding of the knowledge

development issue and translate it into a well-defined process of

inquiry;

(iii) Possessing a relatively complete understanding of the essence of KD,

but lacking sufficient resources to undertake a rigorous knowledge

development effort;

(iv) The inability of a prime sponsor to turn an initially well thoughtout inquiry into a learning activity due to incomplete understanding

of appropriate program evaluation techniques;

(v) A more complete understanding of appropriate evaluation techniques,

but insufficient resources to fully undertake this part of the

inquiry process;

(vi) The Department of Labor's unrealistic expectations of a prime sponsor's

capacity to generate meaningful results and findings during the first

year of an experimental program.

Clearly, not all prime sponsors experienced the above problems to the same

extent as witnessed by several of the exemplary efforts that were undertaken.

159

Atpresent, however, only a relatively small select group of prime sponsors are

capable of meaningful participation in the local YEDPA knowledge development

effort. This circumstance most assuredly is not within the spirit of a national

demonstration projects act, such as YEDPA was designed to be.

The key to maximizing meaningful prime sponsor participation in knowledge

development activities and ultimately the utility of such KD efforts lies in

developing local evaluative systems' capabilities coupled with the establishment
-155-

of the necessary external support mechanisms. Specifically, if meaningful participation in knowledge deVelopment is to take place, the prime sponsor must

first be capable of internally handling the many facets of the KD process in

a manner that minimizes the burdens and disruption upon existing program

design, planning and evaluation staffs. Seco_lly, the prime sponsor must have

access to capable evaluative staff either internally or from an outside contractor to assist in the design and development of KD activities. Considerable

time must be spent in carefully designing and imp:ementing knowledge development studies. As R.C. Smith pointed out in his assessment of initial YEDPA

experiences, "evaluation ordinarily yields learning proportionate to the amount

of time in preparation before programs start." 160

Local Internal Systems Development

Traditionally, local prime sponsors have had to focus the bulk of their

program management atters-ion on short-term operations oriented issues such as

grant applications, grant modifications, regulations compliance, and federal

reporting requirements. The above demands coupled with in-house resource constraints have posed obstacles to the development of a capability for examining

program performance from a longer-term research oriented perspective.

The passage of YEDPA with its accompanying KD mandate, thus, created additional burdens for most prime sponsors. Most prime sponsors desiring to undertake a serious process of inquiry into youth pr(,,JJam effectiveness not only

lacked systems in place at the local level to accomodate these types of activities,

but also faced serious obstacles that prevented their establishment.

Several key issues require immediate attention if this KD process is to

successfully take place at the local level. Among them are the following:
-156-

1) commicment. The realization must be made at all levels of the prime

sponsor's service delivery system that the ability to answer key long-run

management questions with respect to what works best, for whom, and under

what conditions, must be an integral component of any well managed CETA

program. In other words, the notion of knowledge development must be

understood as a crucial element of all rogram efforts of the rime sponsor.

2) Staff Time, Flexibility and Expertise. If the KD process is to be

successfully undertaken at the prime sponsor level, the above noted

commitment must be translated into certain staff capabilities and resources.

Staff charged with the KD function must not be saddled with day to day

responsibilities that have traditionally prevented the development of a

program management perspective beyond a daily operations level. Staff

must possess a basic understanding of the systematic inquiry process underlying knowledge development. Individual expertise as well as organizational

flexibility must exist to take the findings of the inquiry process and begin

to utilize them to influence the planning and design of future YEDPA programs.

3) MIS Capabilities. All sound evaluation efforts are dependent upon a

comprehensive, complete and accurate set of client administrative records.

Of particular importance to the evaluation effort are the demographic and

socioeconomic characteristics of YEDPA participants, their pre-program

labor market histories, information on their program participation, and

their termination statuoes. These data are critical in that they allow

the prime sponsor to examine immediate program outcomes on a continuous

basis. In addition, this information can also act as a benchmark with

which to compare participants' post-program experiences. The extent to
-157-

which a prime sponsor experiences problems in the establishment of a

functioning MIS will adversely influence its capacity to undertake viable

and useful KD activities.

External Support Mechanisms: Role of DOL Technical Assistance

It is critical that prime sponsors have access to technical assistance

from the regional ottiec and outside sources to assist them in the

development of legitimate knowledge development activities that are reflective

of both local YEDPA program goals and prime sponsor organizational capabilities.

Specifically, the following technical assistance functions should be provided

by the regional offices of ETA and OYP.

1) Continued development of technical assistance manuals and sponsoring

of Regional KD workshops for prime sponsor staff charged with knowledge development responsibilities;

2) Establishment of a well-defined set of general KD goals for prime

sponsors;

3) Establishment of a minimum set of acceptable KD activities that would

be required of all prime sponsors;

4) Establishment of a subset of acceptable KD activities (similar to the

YETP mixed income experimunts) that prime sponsors can engage in if they

are unable to design a local KD component of their own;

5) Publication of exemplary KD activities of prime sponsors;

6) A strict interactive grant review process that will insure adherence

to a predetermined acceptable level of KD activities;

7) Provision of technical assistance to prime sponsors engaging in the

building of local evaluative systems capabilities, especially in the

critical areas of staff training and organization, MIS development and/

or follow-up evaluation systems development.
-156-

The above discussion hart examined the serious obstacles faced by local prime

sponsors in their efforts to undertake meaningful KD activities. In addition, the

discussion has outlined the critical need for both internal systems development

efforts by prime sponsors as well as external support mechanisms. 16'

It is clearly

unrealistic to expect many prime sponsors to engage in serious knowledge development

efforts without previously addressing the internal and external constraints to

substantive program evaluation that they currently face. Not only will neglect of such

systems development needs breed frustration and resentment on the part of prime

sponsors, it will also not result in developing the knowledge and understanding

of local youth program effectiveness that is so critically needei.
-159-

General Recommendations for the Preparation, Dissemination, and Use

Of the FY 79 Year. End Reports on YETI' and YCCIP Programs

As previously noted in the introductory section of this report, we

believe that the End of Year Reports on YETP and YCCIP programs could

potentially fulfill a variety of needs and effectively serve as a model

assessment and reporting device for programs operated under other CETA

Titles. 162 If properly prepared, the Year End Reports should be highly

useful to prime sponsors in their own efforts to undertake substantive

self-assessments of their YETP and YCCIP programs' performances, provide

useful information to State Employment and Training Councils on the structure,

operations, and accomplishments of statewide youth employment and training

programs, assist the regional offices of ETA in gaining insights into the

youth programs being operated in their regions, and enable the national

Office of Youth Programs to obtain an additional source of potentially

valuable information on tiie implementation and operation of YEDPA programs

throughout the nation. These "inside" reports on the implementation and

operation of YETP and YCCIP programs would serve as a useful supplement to

the "outside" assessments of local YEDPA program implementation conducted

under the auspices of the National Council on Employment Policy for ETA's Office

of. Program Evaluation.

163

At the same time, throughout this section of the report, wz have described

and analyzed a series of deficiencies within the actual FY 78 End of Year Report;.

submitted by 57 prime sponsors throughout the nation. A number of the deficienci

in these reports were believed to be attributable to shortcomings in tLe instructions for drafting the reports that were provided to prime sponsors by the regional

offices of ETA. Other problems were associated with the failure of many prire

sponsors to abide by the ; tstructions and with the frequently brief and primarily
-160-

descriptive information that they provided in their Year End Reports on policy

and program issues that required substantive analysis as well as detailed

narrative to be useful for regional and national policymakers. To resolve

many of the problems associated with the inadequacies of the reporting instructions for the FY 78 Year. End Reports, we have developed a new set of instructions

for consideration by the Office of Youth Programs. These revised instructions

appear in Section Four of this report.

To substantially improve the overall quality and usefulness of the FY 79

Year End Reports on YETP and YCCIP programs, more than just a new set of instruL

tions will likely be required. In particular, a serious effort on the part of

prime sponsors to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the instructions and purposes of the End of Year Reports will be required. To guarant

prime sponsor compliance with the instructions for completing the Year End

Reports, a more effective set of monitoring procedures is needed. Our rcc,N.mci.c.1-

tions for monitoring the contents of these reports and for increasing their

usefulness for future policymaking and program operations purposes at the local,

state, regional, and national levels are summarized below.

First, the Year End Reports for FY 79 should be completed by prime ;).ti,e-r

staff responsible for the planning and administration of YEDPA programs ,f the

prime sponsor and 3igned off by the Prime Sponsor Director. The Year End Report

should be submitted to the appropriate Youth Planning Council, or Youth Subcommittee

for their review and comments prior to being forwarded to the regioAll office of

the Employment and Training Administration. The Chairperson of the Youth Planning

Coun,L: -r appropriate Youth Subcommittee of the Prime Sponsor Planning Co .acil

should be required to sign off on the document, verifying that an appropriate

review of the Year End Report has taken place by the Council. Formal written
-161-

comments of Youth Planning Council members on the contents of the document

should be attached to the Year End Report. Such actions would guarantee

that the local Youth Planning Councils mandated by the youth legislation are

given an opportunity to participate in the assessment of YETP and YCCIP program performance. The inclusion of their formal written comments on the

contents of the Year End Reports would seem to be in accoll uith their official

monitoring and evaluation responsibilities under the CET The report

should also be made available to the entire membership of the Prime Sponsor

Planning Council.

Second, the End of Year Report of each prime sponsor should be carefully

reviewed by the federal ETA field representative assigned to that prime

sponsor planning area. This review should consist of an examination of the

accuracy of the information (particularly regarding quantitative measures of

program performance) presented in the report and an assessment of its overall

compliance with the actual reporting instructions, Reports failing to provide

the information requested in the guidelines would be returned by the regional

office to the prime sponsor for appropriate corrective action. The federal

representative would also be required to sign off on tb. report prior to its

submission to the Regional ETA Administrator for further review.

Third, each Regional ETA office would prepare a formal report summarizing

the findings of Ow ?ear End Reports submitted by the prime sponsors in its

region. This report would highlight the accomplishments of FY 79 YETP and YCCIP

programs in the region and indicate program areas in need of strengthening

164

during FY 80. The YEAPA-related technical assistance activities of the

regional office for the remainder of FY 80 would be based in part upon the findings of this report.

Fourth, the individual prime sponsor Year End Reports and the regional

office summary reports on FY 79 YETP and YCCIP programs would be forwarded

to the not' Inal Office of Youth Programs for further review. A summary report
-162-

would be prepared by OYP, highlighting the achievements of YETP and YCCIP

programs throughout the nation, outlining the directions in which the youth

employment and training system under YEDPA had shifted during its second

year of operations, and indicating areas in which technical assistance can be provided to enhanc, program performance during FY 80. The findings of

these reports together with the recommendations of prime sponsors regarding

the desired future scope and nature of youth employment and training programs

could then provide additional inputs into the decisio,th.aking processes of

those public policymakers currently involved in the reauthorization of national

youth employment and training legislation.
Section Three: Prime Sponsors' Plans for Imoroving

.r1 79 YEDPA Program Performance:

Recommendations for. ETA and the

National Office of Youth Programs

The instructions for preparing the FY 78 Year End Reports suggested that

prime sponsors conclude their report with a brief summer/ of the major strengths

165

and weaknesses of their FY 78 YEDPA programs. In addition, prime sponsors were

asked to provide a set of recommendations for improving "future programming of

YEDPA". During our review of the prime sponsors' Year End Reports, an attempt

was made to identify the specific types of program changes that prime sponsors

expected to implement during FY 79 to improve the overall performance of their

local YEDPA programs. In addition, this review also documented prime sponsors'

recommendations for various changes in YEDPA program planning, legislation, rules

and regulations, and funding levels aswell as specific requests for technical assistance from the regional offices of ETA or the national Office of Youth Programs.

This final review was based on a sample of 32 of the 57 prime sponsors' Year End

Reports that were made available to the authors of this study. The key findings

are summarized in Tables III-1 and 111-2 below.

Twenty-nine of the thirty-twoprime sponsors included in the review provided

some information on the types of changes that they expected to implement during

FY 79 to enhance the effectiveness of their YEDPA-related employment and training

programs. These planned changes cut across a wide variety of program planning,

design, operations, monitoring, and evaluation areas. These planned changes were

classified into nine general categories, and the results are presented in Table

III-1. As can be readily seen, many of these prime sponsors mentioned multiple

areas in which FY 79 program performance was to be improved.

166

Of the 29 prime sponsors citing one or more areas for future program improvement, thirteen, or 44.8%, mentioned rhanges in the referral and assessment
-164-

of YEDPA participants. The majority of these planiled improvements were expected

to occur 16.the area of increased coordination between Title II B and YEDPA

programs, including .increased referrals of YETP. and YCCIP terminees to Title

II B institutional and OJT training programs. Other planned activities in this general

area of recruitment and assessment included efforts to develop a larger pool of

eligible applicants, increased recruitment of women and high school dropouts,

and more comprehensive assessments of 'youth before their enrollment in specific

YEDPA program activities. Several prime sponsors argued that more effective

assessment of applicants was needed to reduce the number of non-positive

terminations that had occurred in FY 78, particularly in YCCIP projects.

More than 40% of the prime sponsors indIcated that they would be engaged

in efforts to upgrade the quality of their YEDPA-related work experience and

transition service activities during FY 79. The most-frequent planned improvement in the work experience/transition service area involved increasing

the amount and quality of career information and career counseling for participants. Other planned improvements (in order of their relative frequency)

were an upgraded quality'of work experience sites under both YETP and YCCIP

programs, an expanded variety of occupational areas in which work experience

would be provided, and increased training of job site supervisors. Several

of the prime sponsors argued that their work experience sites had to contain

more substantive skill components in order for the participants to feel that

they were learning something valuable enough to warrant their retention on the job site.

Approximately 45% of the crime sponsors indicated that they were planning

to increase the quantity and/or quality of their training services during FY 79.

The majority of these efforts were to be foc!.sed upon expanding the numb,:r and/or
-165-

the quality of private sector OJT slots for. YETP participants. Other planned

efforts in the training area included offering more GED and ABE training to YCCIP

participants, lengthening the durations of existing training for out-of-school

youth, linking classroom training and OJT activities more closely, and diversifying

the range of occupational areas in which training would be provided during FY 79.

Another 31.0% of the prime sponsors planned to either initiateor expand

Vocational Exploration Programs during FY 79. A number of these prime sponsors

felt that participation in such programs substantially increased youth awareness

of occupations in the private sector and.encouraged youth to think more rigorously

about their personal career goals. In addition, it was also argued that youth

participating in Vocational Exploration Programs in private for-profit firms

were more likely to be offered an unsubsidized job upon termination than were

youth enrolled in work experience or career employment experience activities in

puLlic or private non-profit agencies.

tmproved linkages with CBO's, private sector firms and unions, and local

educational agencies were planned for FY 79 by 13.8%, 48.3%, and 44.8% of the

prime sponsors, respectively. Several prime sponsors stated their intentions of

obtaining more active involvement of CBO's in the delivery of services under YETP

and YCCIP programs. Increased technical assistance to CBO's involved in the

operation of YCCIP projects was also planned by a few prime sponsors. Nearly

one-half of the prime sponsors planned to work more closely with businesses and

labor unions in the planning, design, and implementation of their YETP and YCCIP

project's. Several cf these prime sponsors had been totally unsuccessful in

securing labor union involvement in their FY 78 YEDPA programs. Prime Sponsors

seeking to bolster their working relationships with LEA'S primarily planned to

do so by expanding the geographic coverage of their existing LEA agreements and

'76
-166-

Table III - 1: Program Areas in '::hick Prime anonsors

Planned to Improve Performance During

FY 79 (N= 29 *)

Program Area

(A)

Number of

Prime Soonuors

(B)

% of

Prime Sponsors

Referral and Assessment of 13 44.8%

Participants

Quality of Work Experience;

Quality of Transitional Services 12 41.4%

Quality or Amount of Training 13 44.8%

Vocational Exploration Activities 9 31.0%

Involvement of CBO's in Delivery

of Services

4 13.8%

Tnvolvement of ?rivate Sector and

Unions in Planning and Delivery of

14 48.3%

Services

Linkages with LEA's 13 44.8%

Placement of terminees into 10 34.5%

Unsubsidized Employment

Monitoring and Evaluation 11 37.9%

Capability

Note: Multiple responses were allowed; thus, the numbers appearing under

column A will exceed the number of prime sponsors providing responses

(29).
-167-

by obtaining academic credit for a higher proportion of the participants in

their YETP and YCCIP programs Other planned prime sponsor activities involving

LEA's included efforts to bolster the quality of career employment experience

work sites, to expand relationships with area vocational centers, and to

encourage LEA's to work more closely with out-of-school youth.

Slightly more than one-third of the prime sponsors planned to undertake

activities to improve the placement of YEDPA program terminees into unsubsidized

employment. The bulk of these planned activities were related to improving the

coordination of the prime sponsor's own job placement activities, particularly

for Title II 13 and YEDPA programs, expanding the overall job development efforts

of the prime sponsor, and obtaining job placement services from local offices

of the State Employment Security Agency. A few prime sponsors also noted their

intentions to improve the overall, quality of the unsubsidized jobs obtained by

YETP and YCCIP program terminees.

dearly forty percent of the prime sponsors expected to improve their.

monitoring and program evaluation capabilities during FY 79. The bulk of these

efforts were planned to be focused upon increased monitoring of work sites,

particularly those developed as part of the LEA agreement, and an expansion of

overall youth program evaluation efforts, including the hiring of additional

full-time staff and the development of a follow-up capaoility. Several prime

sponsors commented that the availability of such a follow-up system would allow

them to more fu'v address their knowledge development goals. Among the other

planned evaluati "n activities of prime sponsors were efforts to measure the

outputs of YCCIP community improvement projects, to analyze the determinants

of successful job placement of. YETP and YCCIP terminees, and to conduct evaluations

of the comparative effectiveness of local Title II 13 youth and YEDPA programs.

Details on the nature of such comparative evaluations were frequently not provided

in the Year End Reports of prime sponsors.

1 L.
Table III - 2: Prime Sponsors' Pecommendations

for ETA and OYP (N= 2)

Recommendation

More advance notice of rules and

regulations and program policy

changes

Increased time for planning;

changes in the planning process

Introduction of forward funding;

two-year funding cycles

Changes in overall funding or mix of funding

Changes in YEDPA legislation,

rules, and regulations

.Technical assistance in program

design

Technical assistance in increasing

private sector and union involvement

Technical assistance in evaluation and

knowledge development activities

(A)

Number of

Prime Snonsors

(13) Percent Of

Prime Sponsors

6 23.1%

13 50.0%

5 19.2%

6 23.1%

7 26.9%

4 15.4%

2 7.7%

3 11.5%

Note: Multiple responses were allowed; thus, the total number of responses under column A will exceed the total number of prime sponsors from

whom responses were received (26).
-169-

Primelp$msors' Recommendations

for ETA and OYP

During the final review of the Year End Reports of prime sponsors, an effort

was made to identify recommendations that they had for the regional offices of

ETA and the national Office of Youth Programs. These recommendations were related

to desired changes in the planning of YEDPA programs, the law itself, and the

rules and regulations governing YEDPA program operations. Specific requests

for technical assistance were also noted. The findings of this review are again

based on the Year End Reports of 32 prime sponsors and are summarized in Table

111-2 on the following page.

Only 26 of the 32 prime sponsors included in this final review offered one

or more recommendations for changes in the planning of. YEDPA programs, provisions

of the Act itself, or the rules and regulations. Approximately one-fourth of

the prime sponsors pointed out a critical need for the regional offices of ETA

and the national office of OYP to provide more advance notice of changes in

youth program policy and rules and regulations. One-half of the prime sponsors

recommended that increased time be made available for planning YEDPA programs,

particularly give the substantial time involved in selecting operators for YCCIP

projects and getting these projects off the ground. Among the recommended changes

for the planning process were a simplification of the grant application requirements

and the d'2sirability of tying in SPEDY program planning more closely with that

of YETP and YCCIP programs.

Approximately one-fifth of the prime sponsors recommended that the national

offices of ETA and OYP consider the adoption of forward funding practices or twoyear funding cycles. Forward funding of YEDPA program monies was felt desirable

to facilitate prime sponsor involvement with LEA's. The official school

189
-170-

year in most prime sponsor planning areas begins four to five weeks before the

onset of the new federal fiscal year (October 1). Several prime sponsors

recommended a two-year planning cycle for YEDPA programs to allow for increased

time to develop the necessary working relationships with LEA's, CBO's, businesses,

and unions. Such lengthier planning cycles were also believed desirable to

facilitate the undertaking and completion of substantive local knowledge development activities.

Nearly one-fourth of the prime sponsors recommended changes in the overall

level or mix of YEDPA funding. Ah:.t half of this group expressed a desire for a

substantial increase in overall funding, given the fact that available YEDPA monies

allowed them to only serve a fraction of the eligible youth population in their

planning areas. Several prime sponsors recommended that funding for YCCIP programs

be increased, even at the expense of YETP programs, since YCCIP project activities

were felt to be more useful in developing job skills of economically disadvantaged

youths. Other funding recommendations included the consolidation of all youth

programs under one CETA Title and the ability to transfer funding from SPED? to

YETP programs to allow more year-round youth programs to be developed at the local

level.

Seven of the twenty-six prime sponsors (26.9%) recommended changes in the

provisions of the YEDPA Act itself or in the rules and regu-ations for YEDPA

programs. These recommendations were rather wide-ranging and included the

following:

i) Elimination of the participant eligibility criteria differences

between YETP and YCCIP programs;

ii) Increasing 'ne maximum duration of participation beyond the one- year period

iii) Rec.uiring 1:.1 out-of-school youth to receive ABE and/or GED services

while enrolled in a YETP or YCCIP program activity;
-171-

iv) rdcilitating prime sponsor involvement with the private sector

through more liberal OJT allowances and the authority to create work

experience slots in for-profit firms;

v) Allowing a larger share of YETP monies to be used for income - mixing of participants, particularly in rural areas;

vi) Allowing prime sponsors to have allowances for VEP Program participants

be paid by private sector employers rather than by the prime sponsors;

vii) Raising existing limits on overhead.and administrative costs in

YCCIP programs.

The number of specific requests for technical assistance from the regional

offices of ETA and OYP was quite limited and rather diverse. The requests for

technical assistance covered such areas as program design, linkages with the

private sector and unions, and program monitoring and evaluation. Technical

assistance in the program design area i-eluded such requests as methods fol..

developing YCCIP projects with substantive skill offerings,models of exemplary

service delivery strategies for youths in rural areas, and methods for reducing

overhead costs of prograMs. Other types of technical ass4.tance requests included

methods for involving labor unions more closely in the planning and design of

YCCIP projects, procedures for conducting performance basrd contracting,and

techniques for monitoring work site quality.
Suction Four:

-172-

Prcsentaticil cf A R('visoJ Sut of ln:4Ltctions

for Prvarin(j the EY 79 Year. End 10:2prts

In the introductory section of this report, we noted the fact that we were

strongly supportive of the concert of a Prime Sponsor Ycar End Report on YEDPA

Programs. We believe that such a critical self-assessment of program accomplishments, strengths, and weaknesses should be required of prime sponsors for all

CETA Titles. As noted in Section Two of this report, the FY 78 Year End Reports

of prime sponsors were characterized at times by a number of serious deficiencies

that limited their usefulness for local, regional, or national policymaking

purposes. To overcome a number of such deficiencies, a substantial re -'*i.ng

of the instructions for drafting the Year End Report seems to be in order. ^hip

final section of the report presents such a revised set of instructions fl=

consideration by the national Office of Youth Programs in the preparation

the FY 79 YEDPA Year End Reports.

Overview of the Instructions for the FY 79 YEDPA Year End Report

The instructions for preparing the F' 79 Year End Report are somewhat similar

to the FY 78 instructions in that they are designed to capture key information on the planning, design, administration, operations, outcomes, aid impact of local

YEDPA programs. There are, however, a number of key differences be:.tween the two

sets of instructions. The three major sets of differences are the following.

First, the FY 79 Year End Report is designed to obt- r a quantitative as well

as a sualitative assessment of YEDPA program perfoumlnre during FY 79. Secondly,

the bulk of the report is organized along functional lines rather than the

.rather artifical ordering of topics in accord with the ten principles contained

in the Youth Planning Charter. Thirdly, the instructions are substantially more

detailed and specific than they were in the FY 78 report.
-173-

An outline of the suggested Year End Report tocether with the relationship

of sections of that report to the prineples contained in the original Youth

Planning Charter is presented below.

Section Title

(I) Overview Section

(II) Youth Program Planning

(III) Target Group Selection and Participation

in YETP and YCCIP Programs

(IV) Mix of Services; Quality of Work Experience

(V) Service Delivery Agents

(VI) Exemplary or Innovative Program Design

(VII) Institutional Linkages and the LEA

Agreement

(VIII) Program Supplementation

(IX) Program Coordination

(X) Substitution

(XI) Immediate and Short-Term Outcomes

(XII) Evaluations of Program Effectiveness

(XIII) Summary of Program Accomplishments

(XIV) Recommendations for Future Youth Programming

at the Local and National Level

Any Relationship to

Youth Planning Charter

Principle #3

Principle #4

Principle #2

Principle #7, #3

Principle #1

Principle #7

Principle #6

Principle #9

Principle #5

Basic YEDPA Goals

Principle #1

Overview Section

This section of the Year End Report is designed to provide an overview of

the local environment in which YEDPA programs operated during FY 79, the basic

goals and objectives of local YETP and YCCIP programs,and the overall structure

1 LiCI '9L
-174-

and feattres of the YEDPA delivety :-;ystem, including comparisons with Title

II B Youth and SPEDY progrm3.

This section shJuld include, but not be limited to, discussions of the

following types of i3sues:

a) A brief description of the magnitude and nature of youth employment

problems in the local area, with part .cular emphasis on the employment

and training nloblems of economically disadvantaged youths;

b) A summary of tf,e basic goals and objectives of local YETP and YCCIP

programs, including; their role in combatting the types of employment

problems noted in (a) above. The discussion should distinguish between short-term goals and objectives, such as the provision of immedi:te subsidized employment opportunities, and longer-term ob-

:iectives, enhancing the long-run employability of economically

disadvani-ged youth;

c) An overview of the basic structure and features of the local YEDPA

deliverysystem, including a general discussion of the types of

YETF and YCCIP services provided to participants and the nature of

the local service delivery system. The services provided to YEDPA

participants should be compared and contrasted with those provided

to youth under local Title II B and SPEDY programs.

Youth Program Planning

This section of the Year End Report is intended to provide an overview of

the structure and composition of the Youth Planning Council and their roles

and responsibilities in planning, designing, monitoring, and evaluating local

YEDPA programs during FY 79.
-175-

This section should include, but not he limited to, a discussion of

the following types of issues:

a) The structure and composition of the Youth Planning Council. Is

the Youth Planning Council a separate council or a subcommittee of

the Prime Sponsor Planning Council? How many members are representerl

on the Council? What are their agency affiliations? Include a

membership list in a separate appendix of this report.

b) How many "youths" are represented on the Youth Planning Council?

What types of problems, if any, las the Prime Sponsor encountered in

recruiting youths to the council and in keeping them actively involved in council deliberations? What types of actions, if any, has

the Prime Sponsor undertaken to overcome these problems?

c) What roles and responsibilities did the Youth Planning Council undertake during FY 79 (e.g., development of a prime sponsor youth policy,

review of YETP and YCCIP proposals, recommendations of program proposals

for prime sponsor funding, selection of target groups, monitoring ongoing program performance, evaluating the outcomes of local YEDPA

programs)?

d) The accomplishments of the Youth Planning Council during FY 79. Prime

Sponsor plans for increasing the involvement and effectiveness of the

Youth Planning Council during FY 80.

Selection and Delivery of Services to Youth Target Grouns

This section of the Year End Report is intended tr' provide information on

the selection of target groups for the delivery of YEDPA services, success in

recruiting and serving target groups, and methods used to guarantee the delivery

186
-176-

of YEDPA services to those youths "most in need" in the local planning area.

This section should include, but not be limited to, a discussion of the following

types of issues.

a) The selection of target groups for the delivery of YEDPA services

during FY 79. A brief discussion of the rationale for the selection

of these groups. The FY 79 planned number of enrollments in each of

these target groups, including their share of total planned enrollments

during the year;

b) Using data from the fourth quarter FY 79 Youth Program S tatus Summary,

compare the planned and actual number of enrollments in each of the

target groups during FY 79. Explain, if applicable, significant discrepancies (+ 10%) between the planned and actual number of enrollments in each target group.

c) Using data from the fourth quarter FY 79 Quarterly Summary of Youth

Characteristics, describe the number of enrollments who were women,

members of racial/ethnic minority groups, members of economically

disadvantaged families (incomes less than 70%of the BLS lower living

standard), member of families receiving AFDC and other public assistance

benefits, out-of-school youth, and the handicapped.

d) Describe the methods including outreach, intake, and assessment used

by the prime sponsor to guarantee that YEDPA services are delivered

to youths "most in need" of them.

e) What role did CBO's play in ensuring that youths "most in need" of

services are successfully recruited for YEDPA program participation?

f) Has the prime sponsor made any substantial changes in the selection of

target groups for FY 80? If so, prov.ide a brief discussion of the factors

influencing changes in target group selection.

t.
-177-

Design of tne Services Mix

This section of the Year End ,report is intended to provide a summary of

the types of employment and training services made available to youth under

FY 79 YETP and YCCIP programs. Emphasis should be placed on the quality of

work experience activities and involvement of the private sector in the

training of youth.

a) Using data from the FY 79 Youth Program Status Summary, describe

the planned mix of services to YETP participants (i.e., institutional

training, OJT, work experience, career employment experience, transition

services). Provide a brief description of the rationale for the

selection of this services mix.

b) Using data from the fourth quarter FY 79 Youth Program Status.

Summary, compare the planned and actual mix of services provided to

YETP participants. Provide explanations of any substantial discrepancies

(+ 10%) between the planned and actual mix of services to YETP participants during the year.

c) Describe the types of YCCIP projects implemented during FY 79, including the services provided to YCCIP participants. Discuss problems

encountered in implementing these projects, including recruitment of

women, provision of materials, supervision, and substantive skills

training opportunities for participants.

`d) Describe the prime sponsor's efforts to upgrade the quality of work

experience opportunities for YETP and YCCIP participants. Include in

this review the role of the LEA agreement, academic credit for work

experience, and transition services. Describe prime sponsor efforts
-178-

to monitor the quality of work experience job sites. Compare a:A

contrast YETP and YCCIP work experience opportunities with those

availab1.1 to youth under Title II B programs in your area.

e) Describe the nature and overall role of t lining activities; both

institutional and OJT, for youth under. YETP programs. Include discussion of the role of the private sector and labor unions in the

design and operations of these training activities and the coordination

between YETP and Title II B training activities, particularly OJT.

Do any of the existing rules and regulations for YEDPA hinder closer

linkages with private sector and labor unions. Be specific.

f) Does the planned FY 80 services mix for YETP and YCCIP programs differ

in any substantive way from that of FY 79? If so, please provide an

explanation for the actual shift in the services mix.

Service Delivery Agents

This sectiva of the Year End Report is intended to provide a description of

the local agencies involved in delivering employment and training services to

youth under YETP and YCCIP programs during FY 79, with particuler emphasis on

the role of CB0 and NBO organizations.

a) Briefly describe the methods,including rating criteria, used to select

service delivery agents for your FY 79 YETP and YCCIP programs. What

role did the Youth Planning Council play in the selection of these

delivery agents?

b) Describe the nature and relative role (share of enrollments or dollars)

of the service delivery agents for your FY 79 YETP and YCCIP programs.

How, if at all, did these agencies differ from your FY 78 service

delivery agents?
-179-

c) Describe the overall role played by 0130 and NBO orgmnizations in

delivering YETP and YCCIP services to youths during FY 79. What

types of problems, if any, were encountered in obtaining CB0 involvement in the delivery of such services.?

d) Assess in a qumlitative fashion the performance of the various

service delivery agents in achieving the goals and objectives of

your local YEDPA system.

e) Do the service delivery agents for your FY 80 programs differ in any

substantive way from those used to deliver services during FY 79?

If so, provide a brief explanation for changes in the selection of

service delivery agents.

Exemplary or Innovative YETP and YCCIP Programs

This section of the Year End Report is intended to provide a description

and assessment of exemplary or innovative YETP and YCCIP programs administered

by the prime sponsor during FY 79 as part of its local knowledge development

activities. The discussion should address, but not be limited to, the following

types of issues:

a) Did the prime sponsor design and implement any exemplary or innovative

YETP and YCCIP programs, including mixed income experiments during FY 79

as part of its local knowledge development activities? If so, describe

the types of programs so designed and administered.

bl Was a formal evaluation study designed by the prime bp,:msor to assess

the effectiveness of the exemplary or innovative program(s)? If so,

briefly describe the nature of the eval'aation study, including the

overall objectives of the study and the formal hypotheses being

190
-180-

examined, if any. Attach a copy of the findings of the study to the

Year End Report.

c) Have the experiences from the operations of any exemplary

or innovative YETP and YCCIP programs been used in any

manner to shape the structure and nature of the prime sponsor's

FY 80 YEDPA or Title II B youth pregranis? If 10, describe the

types of impacts that such programs had upon the design of the

current YEDPA and Title II B delivery system.

Institutional Linkages and the LEA Agreement

This section of the YLar End Report is intended to provide a description and

assessment of the linkages between the prime sponsor':. YEDPA programs and local

educational agencies, the private sector, and labor unions. Major emphasis is

placed on the scope, nature, and operations of YETP programs under the LEA agreement.

a) Describe the nature and scope of the FY 79 LEA agreement. Include in

this discussion information on the proportion of local LEA's covered

by the agreement, the financial/non-financial nature of the agreement,

the proportion of total YETP monies devoted to the LEA agreement,

and the types of services provided youth under the agreement.

b) Describe the nature of the agreements reached with LEA's on the awarding

of academic credit to YETP and YCCIP participants for work experience.

Using data from the fourth quarter FY 79 Youth Program Status Summary,

compare the planned and actual number of YETP and YCCIP participants

receiving academic credit. Provide an explanation for any substantial

differences (1- 10%) between the planned and actual figures.
-181-

c) Provide a brief critical assessment of the current nature of

prime sponsor/LEA relationships in your area. What types of

changes, if any, have occurred in these relationships since the

inception of YEDPA?

d) Describe the nature of the linkages between the prime sponsor's

YEDPA programs and the private sector during FY 79. Include in

this discussion the role of local businesses in planning, designing,

and operating YETP and YCCIP programs (VEP, OJT, classroom training)

during FY 79. How has private business involvement influenced

the ability of the prime sponsor to achieve the goals and objectives

of the local YEDPA system? What plans does the prime sponsor have

to increase business sector involvement with local YEDPA programs

during FY 30?

e) Describe the nature of the linkages between tha prima sponsor's

YEDPA programs and local labor unions during FY 79. Have labor

cations been involved in operating any YETP or YCCIP programs or

providing instructors for any programs? What types of problems,

if any, has the prime sponsor encountered in obtaining the active

involvement of local labor unions? Does the prime sponsor have

any plans to increase labor union involve in YEDPA program

planning or operations during FY 80? If so, describe such plans

and their objectives.

Program Supplementation

This section of the Year End Report is designed to provide information on the types of resources obtained from other local agencies and other CETA program to assist in the operation of local YEDPA programs. This section should

address, but not be limited to, the following issues:

192
-182-

a) Describe the types of resources (materials, supplies, supervisors,

office space, other services) provided by local agencies and other

CETA programs. Identify both the types of agencies donating such

services and the nature of the services provided,

b) Assess in both a quantitative and qualitative sense the contributions of these program supplements to the effectiveness of the

operations of local YEDPA programs.

c) Do the existing rules and regulations on maximum administrative

costs hinder to any substantive degrpc the ability of the prime

sponsor to provide services to program participants that would

enhance their long-term employability? If so, describe the types

of additonal services that would be provided to YETP and YCCIP

participants with these added administrative costs?

d) What plans, if any, does thp prime sponsor' have to contin= o:

expand upon the YEDPA program supplements that it received during

FY 79?

Program Coordination

This section of the Year End Report is designed to provide information on

the nature and degree of coordination between the prime sponsor's YEDPA programs,

its other CETA programs, particularly Title II B, and the employment and training

programs of other local agencies. This section should address, but not be limited

to, the following issues:

a) How were the YETP and YCCIP programs of the prime sponsor coordinated

with the prime sponsor's other CETA programs, particularly those administered under Title II B and EDY? Include in particular a discussion

of coordination in the outreach, intake

s and assessment activities of

the prime sponsor.
-183-

b) Using the intertitle transfer data from the fourth quarter

FY 79 Youth Program Status Summery, describe the number and

nature of transfers into and out of YETP and YCCIP programs.

How were these intertitle transfers related to the employability development of YEDPA participants?

c) What other types of coordination existed between the prime

sponsor's YEDPA programs and those of other local agencies?

Include in this discussion the nature and degree of prime sponsor

coordination with local SESA offices, public vocational education

and community college programs, local labor unions, and OJT

programs of private businesses.

d) What plans, if any, does the prime sponsor have to improve such

coordination during FY 80?

Program Substitution

This section of the Year End Report is primarily intended to assess the

prime sponsor's compliance with the ETA maintenance of effort goals for youth.

a) Describe the local prime sponsor's FY 79 goals retarding maintenance

of effort for youth under its Title II B program,

b) Using fourth quarter FY 79 data, compare the proportion of youth

served under the prime sponsor's Title II B and C programs with the

% of youth served under its Title I program as of March 31, 1979.

Explain, if applicable, the reasons for any differences between

these two proportions. Were the types of services provided to youth

under Title II B & C programs during FY 80 different in any substantive

ways from those they received under Title I programs in previous years?
-184-

c) Does the prime sponsor believe that the maintenance of effort

policy for youth hinders in any substantive way its ability

to achieve other desirable goals for its economically disadvantaged population under Title II B and C programs? If so,

describe the nature of the problems created by the current

maintenance of effort policy.

Immediate and Short-Term Outcomes of FY 79 YEDPA Programs

This section of the Year End Report is primarily designed to provide information on the numbers and types of terminations from YETP and YCCIP programs

during FY 79, with particular emphasis on the numbers and characteristics of

participants entering unsubsidized employment during that year.

a) Using data from the fourth quarter FY 79 Youth Program Status

Summary, describe and compare the planned and actual numbers of

total terminations, positive terminations, and numbers of terminees

entering unsubsidized employment. Explain any substantial

discrepancies (+10%) between the planned and actual totals

for this year.

b) Using data from the fourth quarter FY 79 Quarterly Summary of Youth

Characteristics, describe the entering employment rates for particular

youth subgroups, including women, members of racial/ethnic minority

groups, the handicapped, members of economically disadvantaged families,

and members of families receiving AFDC or other forms of public assitance. Discuss the difficulties in obtaining unsubsidized employment

for those youth subgroups with below average entering employment rates

during FY 79.
-185-

c) Provide a description of the job placement services available

to YETP and YCCIP program participants during FY 79. How are

these job placement services coordinated with those under

Title II B programs and with the local job placement offices

of the State Employment Security Agencies?

d) What role, if any, has the Targeted Job Tax Credit played

in persuading local employers to hire YEDPA terminees? Does

the prime sponsor expect the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit to be

used in placing youths into unsubsidized jobs more frequently

during FY 80?

Evaluations of Program Effectiveness

This section of the Year End Report is intended to provide information on

YEDPA-related program evaluation activities of the prime sponsor Ot,rim, Fl 79,

including those evaluation activities that were part of its local FY 79 knowledge development activities.

a) What types of formal program evaluation activities, if any,

did the prime sponsor undertake during FY 79? Were any of

these activities part of the FY 79 knowledge development

activities of the prime sponsor?

b) Describe the types of techniques used in ,-r ,cting local

program evaluations during FY 79. Attact. ies of evaluation

instruments, including tests administered to participants and

follow-up survey forms, in an appendix to this report.

c) Provide a brief summary of the major findings of these evaluation studies. Attach a copy of the formal report in an

appendix to this report.
-186-

d) flow have the findings of these evaluation activities

impacted upon the planning, design, and/or operation

of the prime sponsor's FY 80 YEDPA programs?

Summary of Program Accomplishments

Provide an overall assessment of the major strengths and weaknesses of

the prime sponsor's FY 79 YETP and YCCIP programs. Include in this assessment

a discussion of target group recruitment, quality of services provided to

participants, influence of services received upon the educational and skill

attainment of participants, development of linkages with LEA's, businesses,

and labor unions, and placement of youth into unsubsidized employment or

their continuation in school or training. Summarize the major accomplishments

of these FY 79 programs and compare them to the accomplishments of Title II B

youth and SPFDY prograns. What plans does the prine sponsor have to itnprovc

upon these accomplishments during FY 80?

Recommendations for Future Youth Programming

Outline the prime sponsor's recommendations for changes in the provisions ef.

the YEDPA legislation or in the rules and regulations governing YEDPA programs

that would enable the prime sponsor to more effectively serve the employment needs

of economically disadvantaged youth. Include in this discussion recommendations

for changes in such areas as overall funding levels and formulas, eligibility

criteria, income mixing, consolidation of youth programs, program design issues,

required linkages with LEA's, overhead costs, and program evaluation activities.

Finally, outline the needs of the prime sponsor for future technical assistance

from the regional offices of ETA and the nat:tonal Office of Youth Programs. Describe

the specific program area(s) in which such assistance is needed.
-187-

FCOCNOTES

1. See: U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Health, Education, and

mare, Employment and Training 22pprt of the President: 1978, U.S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1978, "Table A-6," pp. 191-192.

For a more detailed review of youth unemployment problems in the U.S., See:

i) COngreisional Budget Office, Congress of the United States,

The Teenage Un loyment Problem: What Are the Options?, U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1976;

ii) Congressional Budget Office, Congress of the United States,

Youth Unemployment: The Outlook and Sane Policy Strategies,

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., April, 1978;

iii) Adams, Anvil V. and Mangum, Garth L., The Lingering Crisis of

Youth Unemployment, W.E. Upjohn institute for Employment

Research, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1978;

iv) U.S. Department of Labor, Conference Report on Youth Unemployment:

Its Measurement and Meaning, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C., 1978.

v) Bowers, Norman, "Young and Marginal: An Overview of Youth Employment,"

Monthly Labor Review, October 1979, pp. 4-18;

2. The annual average unemployment rate of black teenagers fell below 30.0% only

once during the 1970-77 period. This occurred during 1970 when the annual average

unemployment rate for black teens (16-19, both sexes combined) was 29.1%. During

the 1975-77 period, the annual average unemployment rate for black teens ranged

from 36.9% to 38.3%. See: U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare, Op. Cit., "Table A -5," pp. 189-190.

For a recent review of trends in employment and unemployment developments

among black teens throughout the nation, See:

i) Bowers, Norman, Op. Cit.;

ii) Newman, Morris J., "The Labor Market Experience of Black Youth,

1954-78," Mbnthly Labor Review, October 1979, pp. 19-27.

3. See: 95th U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-93: Youth Employment and Demonstration

Projects Act of 1977, Washington, D.C., 1977.

4. Funding for the YETP, YIP, and YIEPP programs was initially authorized for only

one fiscal year, i.e., FY 78. During the 1978 reauthorization of CETA, the

Congress extended funding for YETP, YCCIP, and YIEPP programs for an additional

two years. These three youth-related employment and training programs are now

authorized under Title TV of the 1978 CETA legislation. See: 95th U.S. Congress,

Public Law 95-524: Comprehensive Employment and Training Act Amendments of 1978,

Washington, D.C., October 1978.

Funding for the Young Adult Conservation Corps was authorized for three years

under the original YEDPA legislation. Funding is thus available for this program

through September 30, 1980. See: 95th U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-93: Youth

Employment and DemonstrationTiZjects Act of 1977, "Sec. 810."

1%
-188-

5. For a more detailed review of the purposes of these programs, See:

i) U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare, Employment and Training Report of the President: 1978, "Youth

Unemployment and Public Policy," pp. 69-81;

ii) U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office

of Youth Programs, Putting America's Future TO Work, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D.C., 1978.

6. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, "Youth Programs under

----Carprehensive Employment and Training Act," Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 180,

September 16, 1977, p. 46728.

7. Knowledge development at the national, state, and local levels was viewed as a

key objective of the YEDPA programs, given their demonstration nature. To achieve

this objective, the Office of Youth Programs has funded an ambitious set of

knowledge development projects to be undertaken throughout the nation. See:

i) U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of

Youth Programs, A Knowledge Development Plan for the Youth Employment and

Demonstration Projects Act of 1977, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C., 1977;

ii) U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of

Youth Programs, A Knowledge Development Plan for Youth Initiatives, Fiscal

1979, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1978.

8. A number of general reviews and local case studies of YEDPA program operations

during FY 78 and FY 79 have also been conducted. For example, See:

i) U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of

Youth Programs, Youth Initiatives, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,

D.C., 1978;

ii) National Council on Employment Policy, The Local Focus on Youth: A Review of

Prime Sponsor Experience in Implementing the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act, (Report No. 3 in a Series), Washington, D.C., March 1979.

9. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Region One,

Region I Letter Series No. 257-78: Submittal of Year End Prime Sponsor Reports on

Youth Programs, Boston, August 25, 1978.

10. The initial sample included 62 prime sponsors. By May 1979, the national Office

of Youth Programs had received Year End Reports from only 57 of these 62 prime

sponsors. As a result, it was decided to base the study on the Year End Reports

of these 57 prime sponsors.

11. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Region One,

Op. Cit.

12. The prime sponsors were also asked to pay particular attention to those aspects of

their programs that were "experimental and innovative" in nature.
-189-

13. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and TralaingtAdministration, Office

of Youth Programs, A Planning Charter for the Yduth EmPao ent and Demonstration

Projects Act of 1977, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C

August 1977.

14. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Region One,

Op. Cit., p. 3.

15. Section 345 (a) of YEDPA contained provisions allowing prime sponsors to use 10%

of their YETP allocations to administer employment and training programs for all

youth in their planning jurisdiction. The objective of such provisions was to

allow prime sponsors to conduct "mixed income" programs to determine whether

economically disadvantaged youth would benefit from participating in programs

with ymth from ether socio-economic backgrounds. For a review of the findings

of a well designed evaluation study of mixed income programs, See: Embry-Riddle

Aextnautical University, Final-Report: Experimental Training Project (Youth of

Varying Economic Background), Volusia County, Florida, 1978.

16. The five prime sponsors included in the initial sample who had not submitted

their Ex of Year Reports by the end of April 1979 were Atlanta, Houston,

Phoenix, Rochester, and Stockton.

17. A number of the shortest reports also failed to comply with the bulk of the

reporting instructions developed by ETA. These reports should not have been

deemed acceptable by the regional offices of ETA to which they were submitted

The lengthiest report (approximately several hundred pages) was prepared by the

Pennslyvania Balance of State Prime Sponsor. This particular prime sponsor

apparently requested each of its subgrantees to prepare its own individual End

of Year Report. The prime sponsor then simply stapled these individual End of

Year Reports together and forwarded then to the Philadelphia regional office.

No summary of the findings of these individual Year Ehd Reports was prepared

by the prime sponsor.

18. The actual FY 78 YETP and YCCIP plans of these 57 prime sponsors were not made

available to the authors for their review in conducting this study. Given

the failure of most prime sponsors to discuss their FY 78 program objectives,

it was rot possible for the authors to determine the type and specificity of

the YETP and YCCIP program objectives that they had established in their plans.

19. Other complications arose as a result of the fact that sane prime sponsors

submitted one report covering both YCCIP and YETP programs combined while

others submitted separate reports for their YEW and YCCIP programs. The

reporting instructions did indicate that, whenever differences in program

impact between YETP and YCCIP programs occurred, the findings should be reported

separately; however, it seemed that this request for separate discussions applied

only to the overview section of the Year End Report. In addition, many of those

prime sponsors providing separate reports for their YETP and YCCIP programs

failed to provide any information on the type or eotent of differences in impact

between these two youth programs.
-190-

20. A detailed assessment of the actual, instructiOn4 Por MpAring the Fy 78

Year End Reports on local YEDPA programs, including recommendations for

change, has been previously prepared by the authors. See: Sum, Andrew;

Harrington, Paul; and Schneider, Glen; An Assessment of the Instructions

for Preparation of the Prime Sponsor Year End Reports on YEDPA Programs: Recanneniations for Future Improvement, Center for Labor Market Studies,

Northeastern University, Boston, 1979.

21. See: U.S. Department of Labor, 7mployment and Training Administration,

Region One, Op. Cit., P. 3.

22. The instructions also noted that comparisons of such accomplishments should

be reported separately for YEIP and YCCIP programs whenever they were

characterized by differential performance.

23. The abseace of such a discussion may have been influenced by the general

lack of recent comprehensive data on the employment problems of youth in

prime sponsor areas. A few of the prime sponsors cited the existence of

high youth unemployment nationally as a factor influencing the passage of

the YEDPA legislation; however, they typically failed to discuss the issue

any further, particularly with respect to the unemployment situation far

youth in their own planning area. Those prime sponsors that did discuss

the employment problems of youth in their area cited both low labor force

participation rates and high unemployment rates of low income youth as major problems, but did not present any data to support such assertions or relate

how their YEDPA programs were structured to combat such problems. For

further insights into this issue, see the EYR submitted by the Erie, Pennsylvania prime sponsor.

24. Same of these comparisons were quite brief and provided little insight into

the actual extent or nature of differences between YEDPA and previous Title

I or summer youth programs. For example, one prime sponsor simply noted that:

"The Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act (YEDPA) has

significantly impacted on the services provided to the Consortium's

youth. YEDPA has permitted both more extensive and intensive services

to be available for youth."

25. The instructions for drafting the FY 78 Year End Reports requested prime sponsors in New England to submit their completed reports to the regional office

of the Employment and Training Administration by October 20, 1978. Adherence to this time deadline would not have allowed than an opportunity to obtain

and review planned versus actual data from their fourth quarter FY 78 reports to the regional office on expenditures, enrollments, terminations, and unsubsidized job placements. Such information would have been available in the

fourth quarter FY 78 Youth Program Status Summary and the Quarterly Survey of

Youth Characteristics (QSYC), but these reports are typically not prepared by

the MIS units of prime sponsors until a month following the end of the quarter

closing date, which in this case would have been September 30, 1978.

26. Prime sponsors also discussed a number of other topics in the overview section.

Among such topics were the role of the Youth Planning Council, the process used

by the prime sponsor in soliciting YCCIP projects, the design and operation of

innovative or experimental youth programs, coordination between YEDPA programs

and Title t programs, benefits of YCCIP programs to the community at Large, and

the accomplishments of individual YETP or YCCIP projects.
-191-

27. Case studies of local YEDPA programs administered during FY 78 and FY 79

have revealed that most prime sponsors encountered difficulties in recruiting

women for participation in YCCIP projects that contained worksites in traditionally male occupations. For a review of such studies, See: National

Council on Employment Policy, The Local Focus on Youth: A Review of Prime

Sponsor Experience in Implementing the Youth Employment and Demonstration

Projects Act (Report No. 3 in a series), Washington, D.C., March 1979. A

summary of the findings of the case studies was prepared by Gregory Wdrzburg,

the Director of the project, and appears as the first article of the volume.

28. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office

a-Youth Programs, A Planning Charter..., pp. 5-6.

29. See: 95th U.S. Congress, Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of

1977,"Section 346 (a) 6, (b)."

30. Section 336 (0 (1) of the Act required prime sponsors to submit their YIP

project proposals to their prime sponsor planning councils and their youth

planning councils for their review and comments prior to selecting proposals

for funding and submitting then to the U.S. Department of Labor.

31. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, "Youth Programs

Under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act," Federal Register,

September 16, 1977, Part VI, p. 46735.

32. In either case, the youth planning council was required to report directly

to the Prime Sponsor Planning Council.

33. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, Op.Cit.,p. 46735.

34. For example, a number of the other prime sponsors simply provided general

statements about youth representation on the planning council, success in

getting youth to participate and to provide ideas about and feedback on

YETP."

Others mentioned the number of youths on the youth planning council, but failed

to cite any information on the total membership of the council. For example,

"The Youth Programs Committee presently has one youth member who is a non-CETA

enrollee' and plans to include one participant youth as a ommittee member in

FY 79."

"The Prime Sponsor's Youth Council consists of two youths who have the same

rights and responsibilities as the other members."

35. See: Dimola, Jennifer and Ashby, Deborah, The Planning, Implementation, and

Performance of FY 78 YETP Programs in Massachusetts, Policy and EVuaion

Division, Massachusetts Department of Manpower Development, 1979.
-192-

36. See: Wurzburg, Gregory, "An Overview" in Initial Youth Employment... Report No. 1, p. 18.

Comments similar to this were also provided within the individual case studies included in this volume. Fbr example one author wrote:

"The council is largely inexperienced with CETR and thus to date has played a very minor role in planning."

See: NecLachan, Gretdhen, "First Report to the National Council on Eigioyment Policy..." in Initial Youth Employment... Report No. 1,p. 100-9.

Another author included the following comment:

...the advisory committee members do have full time jobs, a question is raised as to exactly how much you can ask of such people...especially in a short and compactedpericd of time. It would seen that despite good intentions by all parties concerned, the reality of the short time frame and the complexity of the issues greatly restricted the youth advisory committees from having much meaningful input.."

See: Briggs, Vernon, "The Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act IFEhe Southwest" in Initial Youth Employment...p. B-1.
-193-

37. See: 95th U.S. Congress, Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977,

"Sec. 345," "Sec. 332."

38. The gross annual income figure was exclusive of income received from unemployment

insurance benefits and all forms of public assistance income whether federal,

state, or local. Fourteen and fifteen year olds were also eligible for participation in YETP if the prime sponsor developed a plan for their participation that

was approved by the Secretary of Labor.

39. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, "Youth Programs Under

The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act", Federal Register, September 16,

1977, Part VI, p. 46728.

In Section 354(a) of the YEDPA Act, the Congress had noted that prime sponsors operating YETP and YCCIP programs should make substantive efforts to serve

those youth encountering the more severe barriers to employment. Among the groups

cited in this section were high school dropouts, women, minorities, the veterans,

and the handicapped.

40. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office

of Youth Programs, A Planning Charter for . , p. 6.

41. The Charter's discussion of this issue is not clear as to whether CBO's should

simply be used for outreach and assessment purposes or whether they should

also operate YETP and YCCIP programs. The notion that CBO's can "reach" those

youth most in need of employment and training services does not automatically

imply that they can also more effectively serve such groups.

42. The prime sponsors were supposed to list specific locally determined significant

segments in section III of the Youth Programs S,Itus Summary and to provide

information on actual and planned enrollments for each of those significant segments. The QSYC provides information on the demographic, socioeconomic, and

labor force characteristics of actual participants and terminations.

43. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office

of Youth Programs, A Planning Charter for the , p. 6.

44. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office

of Youth Programs, Youth Initiatives, pp. 28-29.

45. See: (i) Wurzburg, Gregory, "YEDPA Program Experiences in Fiscal Year 1978," The

Local Focus on Youth....,, pp. 22-23; (ii) Barth, Peter S., "Third Interim Report:

YEDPA - Connecticut," The Local Focus on Youth, pp. A-10, A-11.

46. Fifteen of the prime sponsors separately discussed planned levels of services

to YETP participants, and an additional seven prime sponsors discussed this

issue for YETP and YCCIP together. Thus 22 of the 57 prime sponsors (or 38.6%)

provided some discussion of this issue.

47. See: Wurzburg, Gregory, ".1 Overview," in Initial Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act (YEDPA) Experience at the Local Level, (Report No.1),

National Council on Employment Policy, Washington, D.C., Februv-ly, 1978.
-194-

48. See: Barth, Peter S. "First Interim Report: Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act Connecticut" and

Walsh, John "Implementation of Programer Under Subparts 2 and 3 of Title III of the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977 by Five San Francisco Bay Area (California) Prime Sponsors," in Initial Youth Employment

49. For other evidence of this,

See: Barth, Peter S., "First Interim Report: Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act - Connecticut," anti

Ripley, Randall B. "Youth Lri'latiOn Project, First Interim Report" in Initial Youth Employment

50. For other evidence of this,

See: Ripley, Randall B., op. -it., and

MacLachan, Gretchen E. "First 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." in Initial Youth Employ- ment

51. The case studies of local YEDPA programs conducted under the auspices of the National Council on Employment Policy also revealed difficulties of prime spon- sors in recruiting women for YCCIP projects involving work sites traditionally occupied by males despite intensive outreach and counseling efforts. Within YCCIP programs, males accounted for 3/4 of all participants while they repre- sented approximately only 1/2 of all participants in YETP programs.

See: National Council on Employment Policy, The Local Focus on Youth particularly pp. 9-12.

52. Prime sponsors were also expected to design and implement local knowledge development activities that would critically assess the actual performance of these alternative approaches to solving youth employment problems. A

more detailed discussion of these knowledge development activities of prime sponsors will be presented in a later section of this report.

See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Youth Programs, A Planning Charter..., p.5.

53. Sees 95th U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-93: Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977, Section 342 (a).

54. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, "Youth Programs Under IITComprehensive Employment and Training Act." Federal Registerariday, September 16, 1977, p.46737.
-195-

55. The rules and regulations noted that these transition services under career

employment experience activities were to include "at a minimum, career

information, adequate supervision, skills training, counseling, and guidance."

In addition, if the career employment experience program was offered under

the prime sponsor's LEA agreement, then the transition services provided to

YETP participants were also to include job placement services.

Ibid, p.46737.

56. See: 95th U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-93: Youth Employment and Demonstration

Projects Act of 1977, Section 332 (4).

57. Section 335 of the Act required assurances from each YCCIP project application that adequate supervision will exist, including an ability on the part

of such supervisors to instruct participating youth in the skill areas required by the project. The rules and regulations for YCCIP programs imposed

more specific supervisory requirements. Each YCCIP project was to contain

at least one full-time supervisor for every twelve youths employed on the

project.

See: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, Op. Cit., p.46729.

58. As noted in the introductory section of this report, the second principle

of the Youth Planning Charter stated that "The content and quality of work

experience must be improved."

See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office

of Youth Programs, A Planning Charter...p.5.

59. In the rules and regulations for YETP programs, "transition services" were

defined in an extraordinarily broad manner, including literacy and bilingual

training, institutional and on-the-job training, and job restructuring. Since

we made specific efforts to separately identify institutional training and

on-the-job training activities, the category "other transition services" was

developed to represent all other types of such services, including counseling,

childcare, and job placement services.

See: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, Op. Cit., p.46737.

60. This treatment is in close accord with the official ETA usage of the term.

As noted in the rules and regulations, "career employment experience" is

"a combination of employment (work experience or on-the-job training) and

certain transition services including, at a minimum, career information,

adequate supervisio%, skills training, counseling, and guidance."

See: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, Op.Cit., p.46737.

61. The instructions for preparing the "overview section" of the Year End Report

suggested that prime sponsors provide a review of their "YEDPA operations."

As previously noted, some prime sponsors did present a detailed outline of

their YETP and YCCIP programs in this section. While others only briefly

described the general nature of their YEDPA activities. A few of the prime

sponsors also proVided a relatively substantive discussion of their YET?

activities under the section of the Year End Report related to the quality

of work experience activities.

20G
-196-

62. The quality of the prime sponsors' FY 78 planned data on enrollments by major program activity appears to have suffered from a lack of clarity

on the precise definitions of these activities, particularly that of

career employment experience and transition services. Interviews with youth program coordinators in Massachusetts prime sponsor and subgrantee

areas revealed a divergence in opinions as to what constituted a career

employment experience and a transition service. For a more detailed

discussion of this issue,

See: Ashby, Deborah and DiMola, Jennifer, An Inventory of Fiscal Year 1978 Youth Programs Funded in Massachusetts Under the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act (YEDPA), Research apii_Program Development Division, Massachusetts Department of Manpower Development, Boston, 1979 particularly pp. 1-32.

Guidelines on the preparation of the youth reports, including specific instructions for reporting enrollment data by major program activity, were submitted to prime sponsors during February of 1978. The FY 1979

quarterly reports of several prime sponsors in Massachusetts do, however, appear to contain reporting errors, particularly double counts of enroll- ment in career employment experience and transition services.

See: 0 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Region One, Region I Letter Series No: 391-77, Youth Program

Reporting and Participant Recordkeeing Requirements for FY 1978,

Boston, February 1978;

ii) DiMola, Jennifer; Ashby, Deborah; and Winkeller, Rachel;

An Analysis of FY 1978 YETP and YCCIP Programs in Massachusetts, Research and Program Development Division, Massachusetts Department of Manpower Development, Boston, November, 1979.

63. On-the-job training services could be provided to both out of school youth and in-school youth. The latter group would, however, receive such services as part of a Career Employment Experience Program.

64. The Statement of Purpose for YETP programs noted that, "training and employment opportunities afforded under this subpart will be interrelated and mutually

reinforcing so as to achieve the goal of enhancing the lob prospects and career opportunities of youths served under this subpart."

See: 95th U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-93: The Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977, Section 341," Washington, D.C., 1977.

65. The YEDPA legislation provided a listing of the types of projects that would meet the criteria of being a 'community improvement project.'

See: 95th U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-93: The Youth Employment and Domonetration Projects Act of 1977, "Section 332 (4)."
-197-

66. Section 335 (b) (6) of the YEDPA Act mandated prime sponsors to establish

labor intensive projects with their YCCIP monies. The rules and regulations required prime sponsors to allocate a minimum of 65% of their YCCIP

monies to wages and fringe benefits for program participants.

See: U.S.Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, op. cit., p. 46728.

67, It should be noted that the instructions for preparing the Year End Reports

did not specifically request prime sponsors to descripte their YCCIP

projects. The failure of arlroximately one-fourth of the prime sponsors

to provide such information, thus, does not imply a lack of adherence to

the reporting instructions. In addition, several prime sponsors did not

administer any YCCIP projects during FY 78.

68. Information on the planned levels of expenditures for individual YCCIP

projects administered by Massachusetts prime sponsors during FY 78 is

available in a report prepared by the Research and Program Development

Division of the Massachusetts Department of Manpower Development.

See: Ashby, Deborah and DiMola, Jennifer, Inventory of Fiscal Year 1978

Youth Programs Funded in Massachusetts under the Youth Employment and

Demonstration Projects Act, (YEDPA), Research and Program Development

Division, Massachusetts Department of Manpower Development, Boston,

May 1979.

69. For example, the projects related to the weatherization and rehabilitation of low-income housing involve work experience opportunities in a

number of crafts-related occupational areas. These jobs are substantially

di.:ferent in their skills content than those previously available to

youth under Titla I work experience and SPEDY, many of which involved

basic laborer, maintenance and low-level clerical skills.

70. The rules and regulations governing YCCIP program operations mandated

prime sponsors to develop appropriate procedures for informing communitybaied organizations of the 'irant agpiication process. Project applications of other agencies were to be considered for funding only after

those submitted by CBO's and NBO's had been reviewed.

See: U.S.Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, op. cit., p. 46728

Definitions of neighborhood-based and community-based organizations were

also presented in the rules and regulations on pp. 46731 and 46733.

71. As noted in the introductory section of this report, the instructions to

prime sponsors for preparing the Year End Report did indicate that separate

discussions of YETP and YCCIP program operations should be presented

"where variations in impact occurred." As noted earlier, a number of prime

sponsors did provide separate Year End Reports for their YETP and YCCIP

programs; however, those prime sponsors doing so seldom discussed the

nature or extent of the differences in the impacts of these two types of

programa at the local level.

203
-198-

72. A few of the prime sponsors did indicate that they were undertaking

knowledge development activities to test the relative effectiveness of

YETP and YCCIP activities in meeting the needs of particular target

groups. For example, the Indiana Balance-of-State Prime Sponsor

indicated that it had undertaken efforts to compare the effects of YETP

and YCCIP programs in solving the unemployment problems of 16-17 year

old high school dropouts.

73. U.S.Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office

of Youth Programs, A Planning Charter for the Youth Employment and

Demonstration Projects Act of 1977,..., P. 5

74. The rul "s and regulations imposed the requirement that YCCIP projects

contain at a minimum one full-time supervisor for every twelve youth

participants.

See: U.S.Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, Op. Cit., p. 46729

75. The section of the Year End Report devoted to a discussion of the quality

of work experience activities seemed to be out of place, following the

discussion of knowledge development activities and immediately preceding

the section on youth participation in the planning, design and administration of youth programs. The material on work experience activities

would have more appropriately fit into an overall section on the planning

and design of YPDPA programs that tied together the program planning,

program coordination, interagency linkages, program supplementation, and

institutional change elements of the Youth Planning Charter. An alternative set of instructions for the preparation of the FY 79 Year End

Reports that ties these elements together in a more organized fashion will

be presented in the concluding section of this report.

76. A few of the other prime sponsors discussed their local goals for work

experience, but defined them in a manner that totally excluded the issue

of the "quality" of the work experience opportunities provided to youth.

Their local goals for work experience were related solely to the number

and characteristics of participants who would be enrolled in work experience

activities under YETP and YCCIP.

77. Other types of effects cited by prime sponsors were increased participant

satisfaction with the services received, increased skill acquisition by

participants, and an increase in their ability to make career choices.

78. One of the more comprehensive efforts to obtain participants' assessments of the services they received under YETP programs was that of the

Philadelphia prime sponsor. This prime sponsor contracted with a private

non-profit research organization known as Research for Better Schools,

Inc., to conduct a process and outcomes evaluation of its YETP programs.

The two-year study's findings have been published in three separate

volumes which are available from the prime sponsor.
-199-

79. Several prime sponsors admitted that the results of their efforts to

upgrade the quality of work experience opportunities for youth under

YEDPA were mixed. In some instances, prime sponsors felt that their

YCCIP projects had been more successful than their YETP programs in

increasing work experience quality while in other areas the opposite

situation held true. In commenting on the shortcomings of its YETP

work experience programs, one prime sponsor remarked that, "Most positions

are of the traditional social service aide -type. jobs which in the past

were available during the summer (under SPEDY)."

80. A major shortcoming of the instructions for drafting the FY 78 Year

End Report was that it asked prime sponsors to discuss the "effects"

of efforts to increase the quality of work experience without providing specific examples of the types of effects that prime sponsors

should discuss; e.g., reduced numbers of early non-positive terminations,

lower absenteeism, greater skill development, high entering employment

rates, etc. Partly as a result of this lack of clarity, the discussions

provided by prime sponsors were not well focused. A lack of specific

local objectives for increasing the quality of work experience was also

a contributing factor. As one prime sponsor noted, "There were no

specific local goals for work experience under YCCIP. The federal regulations provided the goals - improved quality through a 1 to 12

supervisor/participant ratio and semi-skilled and skilled work tasks."

81, The questionnaire developed by the authors for reviewing prime sponsors'

Year End Reports did not collect information on the service delivery

agents for YCCIP programs, Instead, information was collected on the

types of YCCIP projects administered by prime sponsors during FY 78 and

the problems that they encountered in getting these programs off the

ground,

See; Appendix C of this report for further details on this issue.

82, See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

. Office of Youth Programs, A Planning Charter... p.8.

83. Ih10,4, 111.81

84, See: U,S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, "Youth Programs

Under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act," Federal Register,

Sept. 16, 1977, Part VI, p. 46728.

M. See; U,S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Region One, Region I Letter Series No: 257-78... , p.6.

86, The information provided by balance of state prime sponsors tended to be

rather sketchy, particularly for the service delivery agents under YETP.

As a result, the Year End Reports may not have fully identified all types

of service delivery agents.

87, Several prime sponsors also noted that the use of the job placement services

of the USA's also contributed to higher rates of unsubsidized job placements

and the number of youth placed throught the offices of the SESA's were, however, not provided in the EYR's,

21t
-200-

88. The Statement of Purpose for the Youth Employment Demonstration Program

noted that:

"It is the purpose of this part to establish a variety of employment,

training and demonstration programs to explore methods of dealing with the

structural unemployment problems of the Nation's youth. The basic purpose

of the demonstration programs shall be to test the relative efficacy of

different ways of dealing with these problems in different local contexts."

See: 95th U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-93: Youth Employment and

Demonstration Projects Act, "Section 321."

89. For further details on the knowledge development activities of the Office

of Youth Programs for FY 78 and FY 79, see: (i) U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Office of Youth Programs, A Knowlledge Development Plan for the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects

Act of 1977, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.., 1977; (ii)

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of

Youth Programs, A Knowledge Development Plan for Youth Initiatives Fiscal

1979, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1978.

90. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office

of Youth Programs, A Planning Charter for the Youth Employment and Demonstration Protects Act of 1977, P. 5.

91. Ibid.,p. 5.

92. For a more complete discussion of evaluative research in a knowledge

development context, see: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,)Office of Youth Programs, A Guide to Knowledge Development, 1979, pp. 103-129.

93. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Region

One, Region I Letter Series: Number 257-78, Submittal A., , p. 4.

94. The interview questionnaire and coding format used in conducting this review can be found in Appendix C of this report.

95. A description of most of these mixed-income experiments together with a

summary of the evaluation methodologies used in assessing their effectiveness, can be found in the following publication: Sum, Andrew; Zornitsky,

Jeff; Schneider, Glen; Exemplary Youth Knowledge Development Activities

of Prime Sponsors During FY 78, A Report Prepared for the National Office

of Youth Programs, Boston, June 1979.

96. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Office of Youth Programs, A Guide to Knowledge Development, Washington,

D.C., 1979.

97. In fairness to some of these prime sponsors, it should be noted that the

YEDPA Act noted that prime sponsors would not be prevented from operating

programs of a non-dembnstration nature to meet the immediate employment

needs of youth. As stated in Section 321 of the Act, "this basic purpose

(demonstration programs) shall not preclude the funding of programs dealing

with the immediate difficulties faced by youths who are in need of, and

unable to find, jobs."
98.

99.

-201-

The enormous differences in prime sponsor KD activities, as well as differences in their descriptions of these activities, made it virtually

impossible to categorize these activities in any rigorous way. As a result, the discussion will present a spectrum of the general characteristics

of such discussions without any accompanying frequency distributions.

Descriptions of the well-planned program innovations or evaluation

activities are detailed in: Sum, Andrew; Zornitsky, Jeffrey; Schne4er,

Glen; Exemplary Youth Knowledge Development Activities of Prime Sponsors

During_ FY 78.

100. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office

of Youth Programs, A Planning Charter for...

101. Briggs, Vernon, "The Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of

1977 in the Southwest" in Initial Youth Employment and Demonstration

Projects Act (YEDPA) Experience at the Local Level. (Report.No. 1),

National Council on Employment Policy, Washington, D.C., February, 1978.

102. Kobrak, Peter, "An Evaluation of the Planning and Grant Application

Process for the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977

in Michigan" in Initial Youth Employment...

103. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Region

Onej Region One Letter Series No. 257-78: Submittal. of Year End Prime

Sponsor Reports on Youth Programs," Boston, August 25, 1978.

104. A similar perspective was held in a case study of the implementation of

YEDPA in Illinois,

See: Roomkin, Murray, "Case Studies of the Youth Employment and Demonstration Act: The Early Experience of Chicago, Cook County and the Rockford

Consortium" in Initial Youth Employment...

105. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Office of Youth Programs, A Planning Charter..., pp. 7-8.

106. Ibid., p.7.

107. The rules and regulations for YEDPA provided labor organizations a 15 day

period to comment on the YETP and YCCIP plans of prime sponsors prior to

their submission to the regional offices of ETA.

See: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, Op.Cit., p.46728.

108. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Region One, Region I Letter Series No. 257-78: Submittal of Prime Sponsor

Reports on Youth Programs, pp. 5-6.

212
-202-

109. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Office of Youth Programs, Youth Initiatives, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D.C., 1978, p.48.

110. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, "Youth Programs

Under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act," Federal Register,

September 16, 1977, pp. 47629.

111. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Region One, Region I Letter Series No. 257-78: Submittal....,p.5.

112. A copy of the questionnaire and coding format used in reviewing prime

sponsors' Year End Reports to obtain information on LEA agreements is

available in Appendix D of this report.

113. National Council On Employment Policy, The Unfolding Youth Initiatives:

Prime S onsor E erience in I lementin the Youth E lo vent and Demonstration Projects Act (YEDPA), Report No.

by Gregory Wurzburg, p.45.

2; August 1978) "Overview"

114. Ibid.,

and

Kobrak, Peter "An Evaluation of the Planning and Grant Application Process

for the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977 in

Michigan," pp 53-55 in Initial Youth Employment...

and

National Council on Employment Policy, The Local Focus on Youth: A

Review of Prime Sponsor Experience in Implementing the Youth Employment

and Demonstration Projects Act, Report No. 3, March 1979, "Summary of

Findings and Recommendations" by Gregory Wurzburg, p.7.

115. National Council on Employment Policy, The Local Focus on Youth...,pp.7-8.

116. Afew prime sponsors argued that the "mandatory" nature of the.agreements

with LEA's actually obstructed rather than facilitated institutional

change between the local CETA and school systems. One prime sponsor

remarked that

"Where a funding mandate was imposed on the prime sponsor,

as in the case of the School District of our city, the prime sponsor

found itself in a bargainless, inferior position to the delivetr. Our

capacity to implement institutional change was minimal in that instance."

117. Ideally data from the fourth quarter Youth Program Status Summary should

be included in End of Year Reports, In this way information on the

total number as well as proportion of youth actually receiving academic

credit over the year could be included in the EYR. Such data in combination with information about the planned level or proportion of participants

to receive academic credit could provide the framework for discussion of

the academic credit issue within the EYR.

Under Column E of the first section of the Youth Program Status Summary,

the prime sponsor is supposed to report data on the actual number of participants who received academic credit, the planned number of participants

who were expected to receive academic credit, and actual as a X of the

planned total.

2 I

^4.
-203-

118. A summary of these issues can be found in:

(i) The Unfolding Youth Initiatives... pp.41-45;

(ii) The Local Focus on Youth... pp.5-9.

119. See: 95th U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-93: Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977, Section 346 (b).

120. Ibid., Section 346 (a) (3).

121. Ibid., Section 353 (d). The Act stated that local labor unions who represented workers employed in occupational areas similar to the proposed work sites for

youth under YETP and YCCIP programs were to be informed of the application and

to be given a "reasonable period of time" to review and comment on the application. The rules and regulations defined "reasonable period of time" to be

15 days. Labor organizations were to submit their comments in writing to the

prime sponsor, who was then required to consider such comments prior to forwarding its application to the regional office.

See: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, Op.Cit., p. 46728.

122. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Region One, Region I Letter Series No. 257-78, Submittal..., p.6.

123. The questionnaire and coding format used by the authors in conducting this

review can be found in Appendix D of this report.

124. It should be evident that not all of the barriers to union involvement in

UNA programs can be resolved through. the provision of technical assistance

to prime sponsors. For example, the general absence of labor unions in the

more rural prime sponsor areas and the limited nature of union representation

in many of the occupational areas in which YETP and YCCIP participants are

enrolled jointly place severe restrictions on active union involvement.

125. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Region

One, Region I Letter Series No. 257-78: Submittal.... pp. 5-6.

126. The goal quoted in the text appears in the Statement of Purpose for the Youth

Employment and Training Program (YETP).

See: 95th U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-93: Youth Employment and Demonstration

Projects Act of 1977, Section 341.

127. The discussion of service delivery agents for prime sponsors' YETP programs

appears in pages 65-73 of this report.

128. Business may have been involved in classroom training activities of prime

sponsors, including the provision of equipment, instructors, and training

materials.

214
-204-

129. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Office of Youth Programs, A Planning Charter for the Youth..., p.7

130. Ibid., p.7.

131. For example, Section 342 (a) (1) of the Act nor.d that, in designing

YETP work experience activities for youth, prime sponsors should give

consideration to those community improvement projects "utilizing materials

ano supplies available without costs." Section 332 (4) of the Act stated

that in selecting YCCIP projects prime sponsors should give special emphasis

to "those utilizing materials and supplies available without cost."

132. See: U.S Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, Op.Cit., p.46735.

133. See: U.S. Department ,f Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Region One, Region I Letter Series Number 257-78: Submittal..., p.5.

134. DiMola, Jennifer and Ashby, Deborah, The Planning,Implementation and Performance of FY 7R YETP Programs in Massachusetts, Policy and Evaluation Division,

Massachusetts, Department of Manpower Development, 1979.

135. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administation,

Office of Youth Programs, A Planning Charter..., p.l.

136. The National Comhission for Employment Policy has recently concluded that

such tradeoffs between immediate job generation and long-term employability

gains are quite real and pose tough choices for youth program policymakers

and operators.

See: "Youth Education and Employment Goals May Be at Odds, Report Indicates,"

Employment and Training Reporter, January 23, 1980, Volume II, Number 19,

pp. 550-551.

137. A few prime sponsors did comment on the problems caused by strict limitations

on administrative costs, but typically did so in a very general way. For

example, two prime sponsors noted that

"YCCIP is a difficult program to administer, both here (central office)

and at the program operator level, within the administration limitations.

This is due to no 'economy of scale."

"Another contractor had minimal overhead but too few staff to effectively

service the number of participants in their program. As a result, their operation ran like an assembly line with the necessary supportive services lacking

in some instances. Problem participants, for the most part, were the only

ones provided with counseling, which leads to a less than quality program."
-205-

138. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and TrainingAdministration,

Office of Youth Programs, A Planning Charter..., p.8.

139. To assist themselves in these efforts, prime sponsors were requested

to develop an inventory of youth service agencies in their local

planning areas, including the types of programs and services they

provided to youth.

140. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administvition,

Office of Youth Programs, Youth Initiatives, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D.C., 1978, p.48.

141. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, "Youth Programs

Under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act," Federal Register,

September 16, 1977, p.1:6728.

142. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Region One, Region I Letter Series, No. 257-78: Submittal of..., p.6.

143. Approximately one-fifth of the prime sponsors mentioned the existence

of coordination between YEDPA programs and "other youth service agencies,"

but did not provide any specific information to allow for an identification of these agencies. For example, one prime sponsor simply stated that

"YCCIP is working in conjunction with many other social service and education bodies."

144. During FY 78, YETP and YCCIP program terminees who transferred into the

prime sponsor's Summer Program for Economically Disadvantaged Youth (SPEDY)

were not regarded as "transfers to other Titles." Thus, the data appearing

in the Youth Program Status Summary for FY 78 will tend to underestimate

the extent of linkages between YETP and YCCIP and other CETA programs in

those prime sponsor areas in which YETP and YCCIP terminees were transferred

into the SPEDY program.

145. Many of the prime sponsors apparently did not provide estimates of the

"planned" numbers of transfers into or out of YETP and YCCIP programs

from other CETA titles during FY 78. As a result, comparisons of planned

versus actual transfers were not feasible for FY 78 YETP and YCCIP program

operations. The data on planned transfers should be more readily available

for FY 79 YEDPA programs.

146. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Region Dne, Region I Letter Series No. 257-78: Submittal of..., p.6.

147. See: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Office of Youth Programs, A Planning Charter..., p.7.
-206-

148. See: Briggs, Vernon M., "The Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects

Act of 1977: Albuquerque, New Mexico; Coastal Bend Area, Texas; and

El Paso Texas, " The Local Focus on Youth: A Review of Prime Sponsor

Experience in Implementing the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects

Act, National Council on Employment Policy, Washington, D.C., March 1979.

149. Studies of YEDPA implementation at the local level have revealed that many

prime sponsors do not believe that the regional office is capable of providing useful technical assistance on "strategic policy issues." Such

feelings may have influenced the low rate of response on the technical

assistance issue by prime sponsors.

See: Wurzburg, Gregory, "Summary of Findings and Recommendations,"

The Local Focus on Youth: A Review of Prime Sponsor..., pp.40-42.

150. In the rules and regulations governing FY '78 YETP and YCCIP programs,

it was noted that "the purpose of these new programs is to employ and

increase the future employability of young persons..."

See: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, "Youth Programs

Under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act," Federal Register,

September 16, 1977, p. 46728.

151. In the concluding section of his rnport on YEDPA program implementation

in Texas and New Mexico, Vernon Briggs argued that "some well-established

manpower goals (e.g., j placement per se) may be misdirected."

See: Briggs, Vernon M., Op. Cit., pp. 13-18.

152. The doLe appearing in the QSYC can be used to calculate "entering employment

raLes" fo: various subgroups of terminees, including women, members of

racial and ethnic groups, high school dropouts, members of families receiving

AFDC or some other form of public assistance, and the economically disadvantaged.

For those prime sponsor areas in which the total number of YETP terminees is

relatively large, a brief discussion of the differences in entering employment

rates among the various subgroups of participants should be presented in the

Year End Report.

153. The Policy and Evaluation Division of the Massachusetts Department of Manpower

Development has recently developed follow-up questionnaires for Title II-B

youth work experience and Title IV YETP programs. These questionnaires are

currently utilized by those 15 prime sponsors in New England that are tied into

the CETA follow-up system.

See: (i) Schneider, Glen and Zornitsky, Jeffrey, Data Collection Materials

for Follow-Up Evaluations of Title II-B and YETP Youth Programs,

Policy and Evaluation Division, Massachusetts Department of Manpower

Development, Boston, September 1979.

(ii) Sum, Andrew, Follow-Up Evaluation Efforts of New England Prime

Sponsors, a paper prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor Conference on Performance Indicators, Washington, D.C., February, 1980.

154 See: 95th U.S. Congress, Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of

1977. Section 345.
-207-

155. The interview questionnarie and coding format used in conducting this

particular review of the prime sponsors' Year End Reports can be found

in Appendix C of this report.

156. One of the more comprehensive attempts to measure changes in pre-post

test sources on attitudes toward self and work and knowledge of the world

of will-it was undertaken by the city of Philadelphia Prime Sponsor. The

prime sponsor contracted with a local private non-profit research group

known as Research for Better Schools co conduct this study for all of its

YETP Programs. For a review of the findings of the outcomes sicti+. of the

.analysis,

See: Research for Better Schools, Inc., Evaluation of Philadelphia

AMPC Youth Employment and Training Programs; Volume Three: Outcomes

Evaluation Results, Philadelphia, 1979.

157. Five to six prime sponsors fell into this particular category.

158. A discuss of the methods used in selecting these 37 prime sponsors was

previously presented in pp.78 -81 of this report.

159. For a review of the more exemplary knowledge development activities,

See: Sum, Andrew; Zornitsky, Jeffrey; Schneider, Glen; Exemplary Youth

Knowledge Development...

160. See: Smith, R.C., "Youth Evaluation Project First Interim Report:

January 20, 1978," in Initial Youth Employment and Demonstration

Projects Act (YEDPA) Experience at the Local. Level,(Report No. 1)...

161. Several prime sponsors also noted the need for such internal systems development to support local knowledge development activities. One prime sponsor

remarked that:

"More intensive efforts need to be made in the area of Knowledge

Development. This goal should be realized through a recent reorganization

of administrative responsibility and a committed working relationship among

the Planning, Operations, and Management Information and Analyses Units,

of the Employment and Training Division".

218
-208-

162. For a review of our 'views on this issue, See: pp. 3-4 of this

report.

163. See: (i) Wurzburg, Gregory (Editor), Initial Youth Employment and

Demonstration Projects Act (YEDPA) Experience at the Local Level,

(Report No. 1), National Council on Employment Policy, Washington,

D.C., February 1978;

(ii) Wurzburg, Gregory (Editor), The Local Focus on Youth:

A Review of Prime Sponsor Experience in Implementing the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act ( Report No.3 in a Series),

National Council on Employment Policy, Washington D.C., March 1979.

164. The development of such a report by the regional offices of ETA may

well assist them in clarifying their own thinking on an appropriate

"regional youth policy." The existence of such a regional policy

appears to be a prerequisite for the development of a regional office

capability on strategic planning for youth programs. As noted in the

case studies of YEDPA program implementation, regional office staff

were frequently viewed by prime sponsors as being unable to provide

assistance in the strategic planning and program design areas.

See: Wurzburg, Gregory, "Summary of Findings and Recommendations,"

The Local Focus on Youth..., pp.40-42.

165. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Region One, Region I Letter Series No. 257-78: Submittal of...,p.7.

166. These 29 prime sponsors mentioned 99 program areas in which improvements were expected to occur. A degree of overlap did of course

exist.

167. The training of supervisors in methods for resolving job-related problems of participants, including absenteeism and punctuality problems,

was stressed by several prime sponsors. Strong effective supervision

was felt to be particularly critical to YCCIP projects success.

16g. A few prime sponsors expressed the view that the development of an in-house evaluation capability must be viewed as a long-term proposition

requiring several years of investment in staff and resources.
APPENDIX A

Alphabetical Listin: of the 57 Prige S onsors

Included in the Reiriev of the End.,of.olear

Youth Program Reports forTP 78
-210-

Alphabetical Listingof.the 57. Prime. Sponsors

Included in the Review of the End-of-Year

Youth Program Reports for FY 78

Prime Sponsor Type of Prime Population,

Area Sponsor Size Class

Akron/Summit/

Medina, Ohio Consortium #1

Alabama Balance

of State Balance of State #3

Birmingham, Alabama Consortium #2

California Balance

of State Balance of State #3

Chattanooga, Tennessee City #1

Chicago, Illinois City #3

Delaware, Pennsylvania County #2

Erie County,

Pennsylvania County #1

Fort Wayne,

Indiana Consortium #1

Georgia Balance

of State Balance of State #3

Hidalgo, Texas Consortium #1

Humboldt County,

California Consortium #1

Independence,

Missouri City #1

Indiana Balance

of State Balance of State #3

Jackson, Mississippi Consortium #1

Kansas City,

Missouri Consortiur #2

Kentucky Balance

of State Balance of State #3

Leon/ Gadsden, Florida Consortium #1
-211-

Prime Sponsor Type of Prime Population

Area Sponsor Size Classl

Los Angeles County,

California County #3

Louisiana Balance

of State Balance of State #3

Maine Balance

of State Balance of State #2

Maricopa County,

Arizona County #2

Maryland Balance

of State Balance of State #2

Massachusetts Balance

of State Balance of State #3

McHenry County,

Illinois County #1

Mercer County,

Pennsylvania Consortium #1

Middlesex County,

New Jersey County #1

Milwaukee County,

Wisconsin County #3

Minnesota Balance

of State Balance of State #2

Monmouth County,

New Jersey County #2

Monroe County,

New York County #1

Multnomah/Washington,

Oregon

Nevada Balance of State

New York Balance of

State

Consortium #1

Balance of State #1

Balance of State #3

New York City, N.Y. City #3

222
-212-

Prime Sponsor Type of Prime Population,

Area Sponsor Size Class

North Carolina Balance

of State Balance of State #3

Oakland, California City #1

Oakland County,

Michigan County #2

Oklahoma Balance

of State Balance of State #3

Orange County, N.Y. County #1

Oregon Balance of State Balance of State #2

Oswego County,

"New York County #1

Palm Beach County,

Florida County #2

Pennsylvania Balance

of State Balance of State #3

Philadelphia City City #3

Phoenix, Arizona City #2

Portage County, Ohio County #1

St. Claire, Illinois Consortium #1

St. Joseph's County,

Indiana County #1

San Diego, California Consortium #3

South Carolina Balance

of State Balance of State #3

Springfield, Missouri City #1

Stanislaus County,

California County #2

Suffolk, New York Consortium #3

Toledo, Ohio Consortium #2

Volusia, Florida County #1

Yakima County, Washington County #1
NOTES:

1) The prime sponsor population size classes are based upon the following criteria:

Size Class Population

1 41,000,000

2 1,000,000 to

1,999,999

3 2,000,000 +

0' U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1980 0 326-703