f

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED-206 866 , CE 029 975

. . TITLE The Local Focus on Youth. Program'Evaluations. Youth

Knowledge'Development Report 3.15.

INSTITUTION National Council on Employment Policy (DOL),

Washington; D.C. . . SPONS AGENCY Employment and Training Administration (DOL),

Washington, D.C. Office of Youth Programs.

PUB ATE May 'Bo

NOTE 524p.;'For related documents sere" note of CE, 029

968.

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

Office, Washington, DC 20402 (Stock No.

029-014-00150-6, $9.50).

EDRS PRICE MF02/PC21 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS -Agency Cooperation; Career.Awareness; Career

Education; Case Studies; Economically ,Disadvantaged;

Educational Finance; 'Educational Needs; Educational

Objectives; Educational Planning; Educational Policy;

*Employment ProgramS; Federal Programs;_ *Job_

Training-I-I-inking Agents; Ne4ds'Assysment; On the

Job Training; Outcomes of Education; Program Costs;

Program Descriptions; *Program Development; *Program

Effectiveness;1*School Districts;-School Role; Staff

Role; State Prograts; Vocational Education; Work

ExperienOe Programs; *Youth Employment; Youth

Programs

IDENTIFIERS California; Comprehensive Employment and Training

pAct;'"Connecticut; Georgia; Illinois; Massachusetts;

Michigan; New Mexico; North Carolina;, Ohio; Oregon;

.Summer,Pilogram Economically Disadvantaged Youth;

Texas; Washington; *Youth EmplOyment and

Demonstration Projects Act

ABSTRACT'

This evaluation of programs_conducted in fiscal 1978

under the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act (YEDPA)

consists of an overall piciture of the 1978 YEDPA program experience

and case studies of progrdms in 1.2 states. Findings and

recommendations are presented concerning the implementation of YEDPA

programs by, Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) prime

sponsors. Examined in a summary .of the YEDPA program experience in

fiscal 1978 are the evolving roles of local education agencies in

local youth manpower programs, YEDPA- clients in 1978, interaction of

YEDPA and the Summer Program for Economically Disadvantaged Youth

(SPEDY), local, accountability, and the difficulties of spending on

target in 1978. Planning for 1979 and the dynamics of local change

are discussed. Covered next are prime sponsor staff stability and the

role of regional offices. The bulk of the report is aevOted to case

studies of YEDPA programs in the following 12 states: Connecticut,

Texas, New Mexico, Michigan, Georgia,, Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois',

North Carolina,OregOn, Washington, and California. (Related youth

knowledge and development reports are available separately through

ERIC--see note.) (MN1
: I

U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC) irhis document has been reproduced as

received from the person or organization

onginating It

Li Minor changes have been made to improve

reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu

ment do not necessarily represent official NIE

position or polidY

16*
U S Department of Labor

Ray Marshall, Secretary

Employment and Training Administration

Ernest G. Green, Assistant Secretary for

Employmentand Training Adrinistration

Office of Youth Programs )

Material contained in this p lication is

in the public domain and ay be

reproduced, fully or partially, without

permission of the Federal\Government

Source credit is requestecyout not

required Permission is required ogly_

---toreprodriceWEight ed-roateita I

contained herein

V

ea.

3

ti

2
(

YOUTH KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT REPORT 3.15

,.,

li

I.

I

., )

THE LOCAL FOCUS. ON YOUTH

*

National Council °IT Employment Policy

April 1980

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

Washington, D C. 20402

1

0 0

A

...

Y2

..

Is

)

1
a

/ OVERVIEW

The Youth Employffient and Demonstration froje6ts Act introduced t

four, ew,programs intended to expand and improve the quality

of youth employment and training activities. The desired

improvements included greater involvement of community based

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

more structured and supervised work experience enridhed by

counseling, occupational information and other support and . . increased coordination with the education system.

The employment an ,training system charged with the expansion

and improvement of local youth services consists of more than

4 470 State and local units of government or prime sponsors which

are granted funds through ten regional offices of the Department

4fr of Labor, within parameters established in regulatibns and

policy guidances issued by the Office of Youth Programs iri the

Employment and Training Administration. The prime sponsors vary

greatly in their economic conditions, capacities, interests and

perspectives. The regional offices of the Department also have

decisionmaking latitude within the nationally, established parameters. This flexibility is intended tO permit adaptation to

varying local and regional conditions. The.performance of the

employment and training system in achieving its mandate is thus

the aggregation of varying developments in different areas

facing different conditions, as Well as the cuMmulative reflection

of number of decisionmakers at all levels.

Implementation in most prime sponsors did not occur until March

of 1978, and planting. for, Fiscal 1979 followed quickly afterward:

This analysis concentrates on this tumultuous period, It finds that the progrhms were put in place achieving most objectives,

that they, in -fact, had some spillover effects on other programs, but that the different elements took hold at different paces. For instance, prime A sponsors sought to achieve greater cooperation with local education agencies and were sdccetsful, but the needed information for substantial change on the education side filtered 'through its decentralized government structure at a slower rate. Several conflicting trends are in evidence. -The inertia of:standard

'perating procedures was a constant drag on institutional change.

Some elements, on the other hand, took time to work out and could

not occur until Fiscal 1979. Stabilization permitted lessons to be learned and new approaches and improvements, On the other hand, once the funds were committed, some ofthe momentum for,change ) ceased and new vested interest groups were created. Guidance from /the Department of Labor on some substantial issues was for limited,

/ or delayed, while subsequent interpretations of the regulations

increased clarity but also tightened the net .of control, These dynamic processes are critically important and occurred with

different. effects in different areas.
This set of case studies and the accompanying overview seek to

captdre both the diversity of experience and to generalize about

the overall developments at the operating level. The Local Focus.

on Youth' describes and analyses.the eXperiences of 37 prime

sponsors in implementing the' Youth Employment and Training Programs

and Youth Community Conservation ancl Improvement Projects during

Lipscal 1978. 4

The case studies which follow the overview analysis reflect the

variability of exrience across the Nation. In some localities,

YEDPA provided'the impetus and resources for major changes

CEIrA OperatigES-TECluding the Summer Youth Employment

Program. In other areas, it was simply bupiness as usual with

nominal efforts to meet Federal guidelines. Regulations, directives

and designs whichhad positive imracts in some settings had negative ones in others., The case-s,tudies clearly reflect the

ilktficulty. of generalization about programs, pkIme sponsors .and

appropriate Federal policies.

This volume is one of the p2OdUcts of the "knowledge development"

effort implemented under the mandate of the Youth Employment

and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977. The knowledge development

effort consists of hundreds of separ*e research, evaluation -and_

demonstration activities which will.ilesUlt in literally thousands of

written products. The activities have been structured from the

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

host of other activities. The framework is presented in A 4nowledge

Development Plaq for the Youth Employment and Demonstration protects

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

Fiscal 1979, and Completing the Youth Agenda: A Plan for Knowledge'

Development, Dissemination and Application in Fiscal 1980.

Information is available or will be coming available from the various

knowledge. development activities to help resolve an almost limitles§

array of issues, but answers.to policy questions will usually require

integration ,and synthesis from a number of separate products, which,

in turn,'will depend gn knowledge and availability of these products.

A major shortcoming of past research, evaluation and demonstration

activity has been the.failure to organize and disseminate the.products adequately to assure the full exploitation of the findings.

The magnitude and structure of. the youth knowledge development, effort

puts a premium on organization and dissemination

As part ok 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, evalua-

. tion and demonstration activities supported directly by or mounted

in conjunction with the knowledge devalopment effort. Some of the

same products may also be published and disseminated through other

channels, but they will.be includ9d in, the structured series of '

Youth Knowledge Development Reports in order to facilitate access

and integration.

6
.

i4 i

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, validatio of measurement instruments, the translation of knowledge

into olicy, and the strategy for disseminating finding. a

2. Research on Youth Employment and EAployability Develop-

-immit-r- -'411he products in-thi.seategoryrepresent analyses_ of existing

data, prbsentation of f ndings from new data sources, special

studies on dimensions of-youth labor markTt problems and policy

analyses..

3. Program Evaluations: The products in this category include

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

Adult Conservation Corps, Youth Employment and Training Programs,

Youth Community Conservation and Improvement Proj'ects, and the

Targeted Jobs TaX Credit.

4. Service and Participant Mix: The evaluations and demonstra3

tions summarized in this category concern the matching of different

types of youth wit different service combinations_ his involves

experiments with Work vs. work plus_xemediation vs. straight remediation as treatment options. It also includes attempts to mix

disadvantaged and more affluent pakticipants, well as, youth with

older workers. , 7

1 5. Education and TrainingApproaches: The products in this

category present the findings of structured experimentS to test the

impact and. effectiveness of various education and vocati,bnal training

approaches includin/ specific'educatio methodologies for the disadvantaged, alternative,education app 6aches and advanced career

training.

A 6. Pre-Employment and Transition Services: The products in 4

61is 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 labortarket 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. Impiemeita n Issues: This category includes crosscuttirig

analyses of the practi lessopt concerning "how-to-do-it."

_Issues such as learning urves, replication processes and programmatic "batting averales" will be addressed under this category,

as well as the comp rati e advantages of alternative delivery agents.

I
iv

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 programming, the use of incentives and multi- , year tracking of individuals.

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

present finding's bn the special =rpTtOblethSof-alid--adap-t-atiOnS--rie-ea.d

for.significant'segments including minorities, young mothers,

troubled youth,' Indochinese refugees and the handicapped.

.

. . .1 . 11. Innovative Approaches: The products in this category .) present the findings of those activities designed to explore new

approaches. The subjects covered incldde the Youth .Incentive --- Entitlement Pilot Projegts, private sector initiatives, the national

youth service experiment, and energy initiatives in weatheriza- -.. tion, low-liead hydroelectric dam restoration, windpower and-the like.

12. Institutional Linkages: The products in this category

will include studies of institutiona(1 arrangements and linkages

as well as assessments of demonstration activities to encourage

such linkages with education, volunteer groups, drug abuse agencies

and handicapped youth serving institutions.

In'each of these knowledge development categories, there will.be

a range of discrete demonstration, research and evaluation

activities focused on different policy, program and analytical

issues. For instance, all experimental demonstrationtiprojects kbavqi,

both process and impact evaluations, frequently undertaken by

different evaluation agents. Findings will be published as they

become available So thaAhere 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 sbebific issue, activity

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

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

the demonstration. Hence, the multiple products under a knowledge

development activity are closely interrelated and the activities

in each broad cluster have significant interconnections.

.8
v

This report by the National ConnCil on Employment Policy is t4e--

third in a series of four reports which inclUde: Initial Youth )

Employment and Demonstration Projects Act (YEDPA) Experience at.,

the Local Level, the Unfolding Youth Initiatives, and Youth and

the Local Employment Agenda: While the fourth 'report summarizes

much of the information in the.fIrstlthree volumes, the complete

set of studies provides a fuller picture of the ,process Of

implementation and then stabilization =ftg .-se new prime sponsor

programs. Other reports in the "proig 61 evaluations" category

provide further perspective on the effetiveness of prime sponsors

in implementing these programs. Basic data are provided in the

repprt from the Continuous Longitudinal Manpower Survey,

Characteristics of Enrollees Under Age'22 Who Entered CETA Programs

During Fiscal Year 1978. Office of Youth Programs assessments of

the YETP_andYCCIP experience are srovided in Youth Initiatives

and A Foundation for the 1980's.

I

ROBERT TAGGART

-AdMinistrator

Office of Youth Programs

t
0 CONTENTS

1 1 4'01.7ERVIA.

PART ONE: THE OVERALL PICTURE

Summary of. Findings and RecommendatiOns

YEDPA prbgram Experience in Fiscal Year'1978 5

PART TWO':

PAGE

1

- The Evolving Roles of Local EducatiOn

Agencies in Local Manpower Programs in

Youth

YEDPA Cliers in 1978

Interaction of YEDPA and SPEDY

Local Accountability

The Difficult=ies

in 1978

of Spending,on Target

Planning-11Yr 1979

The Dynamics of Local Change

The Local Perspective

. . Prime Sponsor Staff Stability

The Role of the Regional Offices

CASE STUDIES

Peter rt

Verno Triggs

P- er Kobrak

Gretchen Maclachlan

Paul Osterman!

Randall -Ripley

Myron RoOmkin

R. C. Smith!.

Bonnie Snedeker'

1.

John Walsh , 9 1

Connecticut

'Texad/New Mexico'

Mrchigan''

Georgia/

Massachus tts '

Ohidr

Illinois/.

North Crolina,

Oregon/Washin9ton'

California/

10

. .

5'

.9 16

21

26

32

32

36

36

39

A-1

B-1

D-1

E-1

F-1

G-1.

HI])

I-1

J-1
SUMMARY Of FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4 The YEDPA programs that CETA prime sponsors conducted in fiscal

1978 were abbrekiiated, not really getting underway until the end of the

second quarter: Because of that and other one-time conditions;'the first

year experience is inconclusive. Planning efforts were pressured bya rushed

implementation schedule and confusion over funding levels, Operations

frequently lagged because of the challenge of findi-Wg new program deliVery

agents, working out cooperative agreements with local schpols, and identifying

and developing work experience sites. Because experien6 in fiscal 1978 was

short and .probably atypical, it cannot be used reliably as a basis for much

. I change in policy.., YEDPA needs more time before national policymakers should

attempt to change basic policies. However, some administrative tinkering

does seem justified.'

(1) 'CETA -LEA Agreements. 'One of the central goals of YEDPA is to

encourage cooperation between CETA prime sponsors and lspal education agencies

(LEAs). It is.hoped that closer prime sponsor -LEA relationships will barrow

the gulf betWeen employment and training activities and education activities,

enhance the tducation andkemployahility prospects for school leavers, and

enrich the in-school experience for youth who mjght otherwise drop out.

In the first year, joint agreements between CETA prime sponsors and

scgools were negotiated. Most prpgrams under the agreements were implemented,

but because 'of late starts, ran only briefly. The prevailing pattern is to . ontinue the programs through a full academic year before making major changes.

The Department of Labor ouqh&to resist the temptation to push

CETA-LEA cooperStion any faster and continue to refrain from putting pressure

on prime sponsors. A full academicjear of experience seems reasonable and

l'necessary before LEAs will willingly accept.much change.

Procedural incompatibilities between prime sponsors and local schools,

such As different planniog and budget cycles, and'CETA funding uncertainty

appear only to hinder CETA-LEA cooperation; they do not prohibit it. The

serious conflicts arise because of LEA resistance to awarding"academic credit

for YEDPA activities and targeting YEDPA services within.schoals.

YEDPA programs have succeeded in putting on the local school agenda

the question of awarding academic credit for work experience a'nd career

exploration activities. But the task of determining what experience should

be awarded academic credit falls primarily on the schools. It is'not realistic

,to expect local sponsors to be much more than catalysts in coaxing schools in

the appropriate direction. The Department of Labor should'take steps to assure

that encouragement, technical assistance and program models for awarding

academic credit are-filtered down to local schools from the education side

of the federal establishment;,

.$ . :

I - 1 -

4 f
2

While the current regulations governing activities under LEA

agreements do not prohibit schools from enrolling "non-eligible" youth

activities other than work experience, the Department of Labor' discourages

it. But, targeting by income, a central element in the youth programs, is

not widely accepted by school administrators. They object to it an Political

grounds, because keeping students'out of activities merely on the basis of

fanitlyi income is not popular among the studentswho were kept out and may

stigmatize the yduth wha,participate. Admintstrafdrs object on substantive

grounds because they do not see family income as a valid indicator of need

for employability development services. 1 The CETA reulations going into effect April 1, 197g, of course,

prohibit youths not meeting the income eligibility criteria from participating

in'work experience and some related employability development activities.

But they explicitly permit those youths to receive, counseling, occupational

information, and placement-services. Since targeting provisions_generally

present one more source of-tension in prime sponsor-LEA relations, the

Department of Labor should encourage prime sponsors to permit LEAs to take

advantage of the relaxed guidelines where such a strategy will facilitate

prime sponsor-LEA cooperation.

(2) YEDPA Clients. In order to get the biggest bang. for the buck,

YEDPA services should be going to those most in need. Overall enrollment data

indicates that is indeed the case. But,,there is not Much evidence that , sponsors are establishing special out-reach procedures to enroll certain target

groups th select, such as handicapped or juvenile offenders. There is also

hot. much Aidence that, having established target groups for special attentionosponsors adapt services to meet the special' needs of those groups. The

Department of Labor should go further in asking_sponsors to (1) explain the'

'-- stew they will take to assure that persons within target groups are enrolled,

and (2) explain the procedural or programmatic adaptations made to assure that

clients in the target groups receive the srvices they need.

(.As intended, YETP,enrollments are predoeflantly intschool yOutn,

while YCCIP enrollments are. predominantly out-of-school youth. However, due

to the heavy emphasis in YCCIP projects on activities producing tangible

outputs, they are dominated by traditionally-male 'bccupations -- construction,

maintenance,'.and landscaping. This pattern has resulted in.under-enrollment of

females, even despite the extra efforts of a few sponsors to place young women

in the.traditionally-male occupations. Short of changing ,leoislatiqii to

de-emphasite the production OT tangible outputs,in YCCIP, the Department of

Labor should identify and support local outreach/intake models that have been

successful in increasing female enrollments in non-traditional occupations,

-, and urge other sponsors to adopt similar procedures.

2 ' (3) YEDPA and the Summer Youth Programs. In order to improve the

traditional summer youth Grogram, the Department of Labor encouraged prime

sponsors to link it with YCCIP and YETP-activities. With few exceptiqns,

,local sponsats did just that. The .result was ttibt the summer program, which

previously had been almost exclusively work experience of uncertain value,

'included career exploration and'other labor market services. There are

signs, hqwever, that except for the jobs held by yoOths employed year.-round,

$ 12
-3-

the 1978 summer jobs theMselves were'similar in quality to those in previous

years. It also appears that the enriched programs are not as appealing as

straight work experience to youths who just want a summer job. Since it

appears that work experience is an essential ingredient for the summer youth

program, but enriched services are not, the Department Of Labor should put

an emphasis first on assuring the quality of summer jobs, and then on developing

auxillary services.. But if SPEDY continues to serve a predominately in-school

populat=ion, the Department of Labor should encourage sponsors to provide

auxillary services as much as possible during the school year. .

.

. (4) Accountability. Prime tpoRsors are held accountable to both

fedeta1 and local_officials,on matters of compliance o regulations and the

law. But there is littleaccountability.for the effe is of programs on the

'employability of clients. Because such ,effects Are dl ficult to assess, ' because there are few rewards'forevaluating them,-and because such evaluation

costs in time and resources; there,is little incentivefa. sponsors to shoulder

.the :burden for that kind of accountability., Despite this atmosphere which, it

might be expected.; would discourage prime s50-nsor innovation and experimentation,

many are attempting new.strateglet and documentihg-theiNs4ts. But the

increisingublic attentioR.on fraud and abuse in CETA may squeeze out those

attempts.

If the Department of Labor wants to encourage more innovation and

experimentation,and a willingness on the part of sponsors to assure responsibility

for program results, it should consider a system of incentives for such activities

to inake,them worthwhile. '2%; (5) Spending in 1978. During fiscal 19784primekponsors struggled to

'' get YEDPA off to a (late) start, an&during the summer tried to pace the spending

so that they could carry 27 percent Wtheir 1978 allocations into 1979. They . succeeded with only minor disruptionlifl There was little that the Department

of 'Labor could do to either foresee or control the events that dictated a . . sizeable carry-in. However, the spending messages were not transmitted uniformly

nor clearly to the local sponsor. This caused unnecessary confusion. The

Department of Labor ought to review the procedures for transmitting information

to local sponsors and make the necessary changes so that sponsors can be

assured of receiving timely and accurate notice of policy changes.

(6) Planned and Actual Performance. Although the available data do

not permit precise analysis of planned and,actual performance, some overall

patterns can be-inferred frolp them, Per-enrollee costs for YCCIP work . experience ran below expected levels because turnover was higher than anticipated.

Many of the YCCIP "terms es," in fact, went/into Title I or SPEDY, but a large

proportion left YCCIP beca e supportive services were lacking, or totake

higher paying jobs eIsewher . Discrepancies between plane and actual perenrollee costs for YETP usualTyreflect little more than mIrestimation in the -1" planning stages. Faulty cost estimates were a more frequent source of error

than faulty enrollment estimates. This was presumably due to the number of Iz unknown cost variables involved in establishing the new program.

4

13
-4.-

(7) Planning for 1979. The planning phase, so important to the

development of new programs, was les's rushed during the 1979 cycle than intHe

previous year, but was still unsettled by uncertainty over CETA reauthorization

and funding levels. Some sponsors made changes in procedures, institutional

relationships, and basic policies, but many have taken a wait -and -see

- attitude, wanting more experience before striking off in new directions. It

seems that sponsors.are quite willing to make further changes in their youth

policies and programming. What is not so clear is whetter most-of 'the local

change induced by YEDPA has already occurred.

(8) The Local Agenda. Local administrators share many of the concerns

of YEDPA administrators in Washington. But they .have other problems that YEDPA

has aggravated to some degree, but which are intrinsic 'to the entire CETA

system of decentralized-decategorized,manpower program delivery. Two of them

are staff turnover and-prime sponspr relations with the regional offices of

'the Department of Labor. ,This evaluation-i- like others, -- ,has found some

CETA staffs to be plagued by low morale and high turnover, apparently caused

by political vulnerability, having to serve two masters --one local and the( . other federa1 -- and having inadequate` time for program planning and development.

Sponsors are also experienting frustration with regional offices.

Some of it springs from the natural tension between federal and local. authority

in a decentralized-decategori2ed approach to CETA. But more can be traced to

a lack of role definition for the regional network and an inability of it to

execute in concert with the national, office program offices.

The case studies provide insufficient basis for definitive

recotmendations; they merely identify some'of the sponsor problems'that are note

so evident- (nor important) from the federal perspective. The4epartment of

Labor, however, should examine these problem areas in some detail to determine

what their. effects are and what measures can be taken to get around the

problems.

14
YEDPA PROGRAM EXPERIENCE IN FISCAL YEAR 1978

.Six areas in the record of accomplishment for fiscal 1978 stand out

for special attention: linkages between prime sponsors and local schools, the

client population, interaction between the summer job program find YEDPA,

local accountability, spending patterns, and discrepancies between planned,

'and actual performance.

The tvolving_'Roles of Local Education Agencies in

Local Manpower Programs for Youth

One of the more ambitious aspects of YEDPA is the heavy emphasis on

bringing together prime sponsor youth programs and local school systems. There

is an assumed. tomplementarity 'between the CETA and education systems with

respect .to the populations they serve and the services they proviie. The hdpe

is that mechanisms, such as the proviiion setting aside 22 percent of each

sponsor's YETP allocation to be administered under the terms of a joint CETALEA agreement, will force theIme-tstablishments to act more in concert to

leverage local'resources into a comprehehsive base of employment and training

services for youth.

The Council's first report on YEDPA implementation told a story about

optimistic prime sponsor plans for,CETA-LEA agreements. They reflected more

aspirations of the sponsors than of, local education authorities, and certainly

more than yes realistic. The second report documented problems encountered

implementing the first hasty plans: a breakneck implementation pace that left

little time for considerations about quality; incompatibility between prime

sponsor and LEA calendar years; disagreements over whether academic credit was I, appropriate for employment services or work experience. There were positive

results to report, but expectations in' the first LEA cycle ending in June

outran what was feasible.

Expectations for the-start of the second academic year may have been

lowered, but, at the margin, sponsors and LEAs seem to be moving in the direction

of more progress. More significantly, much of the dust has cleared and it is

easier to make some judgments about the relative importance of factors

influencing joint CETA-LEA undertakings.

Except for attempts to fine-tune first year efforts, few substantive

changes were made in LEA programming for the 1978-79 school year. But, the

steady state doei not necessarily indicate apathy or an inability to change;

rather, the pre4ailing opinion for LEAs and sponsors alike, is that the first

year provided an inadequate test and the first year's experiences were not

representative of what could happen. In most sponsorships, the LEA share of

YETP funds, which frequently exceeds the 22 percent minimum by a large margin,

remains the same4

5
6

There are, however, sore isolated cases in which ckanges,have been

made and can be attributed to sponsors and LEAs rethinking the premises on which

the agreements are based. In Sonoma, where the LEA agreement for the 1978-79

school year was made much more specific than for the previous year, LEA staff

resent CETA "non-professionals" telling them what services to praide to whom.

The schools there also see the LEA agreements and CETA "... as a channel

through which county and city governments can exert influence on 'independent,

school districts." (John Welsh, Page J-27). The Oregon Balance of State

prithe sponsor will be increasing the proportion of YETP funds going to the . schools. But prospects for dramatic change there are pot promising because of

uncertainty over school budgets.

NJ^ Award of Academic Credit

4

The award of academic credit for career development'classes and job

competencies is the most visible and controversial product of CETA-LEA

cooperation. It is a device that requires ahigh degree of cooperation between

sponsors and LEAs, and it is seen as being important as an extra incentive to

keep youth in an education setting or to at least keep them in contact with

the education establishment through alternative approaches. It is also a

mechanism encouraging more active participation by schools in helping youths

think about the world of work and draw some kind of connection between their

early werk experiences and Tater careers.

Though this topic will be treated in more detail in the final report

of this evaluation, it merits attention here because it is still the most

debated issue among sponsors and LEAs and the issues surrounding,the award

of academic credit for CETA activities are far from settled.

In some cases,'sponsors had ambitious first year plans for awarding

academic credit to YEDPA participants,;but were stymied by LEAs citing the

need to go through clearance procedures. States set the basic rules on the

award of academic credit, but usually leave most of the discretion with local

authorities. Delays in the first year were encountered when LEAs were slow to

award credit because they were uncertain about their authority or because they

were biased against awarding academic credit and preferred not to without a

specific state mandate. The state department of education in'Ohio is a case

where precise guidelines on academic credit are Tackigg and local authority is

uncertain. In Clark County, the LEA involved' in YETP chose to tread cautiously.

When it became clear that the state would'not provide explicit guidance,.LEA

personnel -- who had_been in favor of awarding credit -- started the approval

process in time for the second year. Ih Greene County, however, where LEA

officials were reluctant from the beginning to award academic credit,.the

schools persisted in their decisions for the second year.

In contrast, North Carolina provided early encouragement from the

state level with even the governor getting involved in a campaign to support

the the award of academic credit. In Charlotte, local CETA and LEA administrators

have developed a good working relationship and made arrangements for awarding

16
Y

-7

academic credit. But in Durham-Orange, local feelings among LEA staff run,

strongly against` gainst the award of academic credit as well as most of the ideas

behind CETA-LEA agreements. On the sponsor side, staff think the school

principals and guidance counselors "... resent what they perceive as an

Dverload on their staff caused by CETA people 'coming for,help!'" (R. C. Smith,

Page H-13). But the resentment that sponsor staff perceived may have sprung'

froth some of the CETA-LEA "joint" activities which were established with

little .regard for school policies. For example, as part of the summer,program,

the sponsor paid 25 high school seniors while they were making up for school

work they missed,during the previous year:. School officials saw'the program

as providing an unfair subsidy f6r students to do work that others had to do

as part of their normal school requirements. But there are more basic

prejudices among schools in North Carolina'that even more tactful spOnsors

are having difficulty with, state level encouragement notwithstanding. There

is fierce resistance to any measures such as academic credit that would

establish alternative modes of education for drop-outs. School administrators

resent CETA for "rescuing" drop -outs and the objective of getting them back

into school is abhorent. One principal complained that "... the very ones

that had been kicked out used CETA as a way to get back in Fe system.!'

(R. C. Smith, Page H-14). As a consequence of the ill-feeling chat some LEAs

in North Carolina have towards CETA and their basic disagreement with YEDPA.

objectives, they are making no attempts to award credit, state leadership

notwithstanding.

The introduction of competency examinations in North Carolina and

California has been cited as another point of resistance to the award of

academic credit. With seniors having to demonstrate competency in verbal

and*Math skills, educators are becoming more reluctant to award academic

credit for activities not aimed to improve thoe skills. Some Lansing area

schools use a similar line of argument and do riot award academic credit

because administrators feel that awarding academic credit for work experience

or career exploration services would be at the expense of academic requirements.

Perhaps the most fundamental objection'by LEAs to academic credit

provisions revolves around a turf issue: who certifies classroom or work

experience for academic credit! Local educators resent prime sponsor

personnel having any authority in this area; but prime sponsor administrators

see local schools' frequently as being reluctant.to incorporate employment and

training activities into, curriculum without outside (CETA) pressure. The

tension has been resolved where LEAs have worked out with prime sponsors a

division of labor in which LEAs certify training and work experience and share

with prime sponsor personnel, monitoring responsibility..

Other Issues Affecting CETA-LEA Relations

The academic credit issue is important but not decisive in determining

how, sponsors and LEAs fare in their joint ventures. Some .other factors are

influential. Outside the area of academic credit, the targeting provisions of

YEDPA raise the most red flags.' It is an area, not cited very much in earlier

17
reports, that poses real threats to ETA-LEA cooperation. The emphasis on

serving drop-outs is not always pop ar,with LEAs, but targeting,by income is

resented even more. A report on a L A program in the Connecticut Balance of

State sponsor was emphatic on this point: "..."eligibility requirements based

on family income should be eliminated or raised substantially in order that

all youth who could benefit from the.program be served." (PeterBarth,

Page A-23). The reasons for the unpopularity of the income cut-off are

predictable. Economic need is not seen as a valid or reliable indicator of

employability development need, The schools, rarely having to take inconle

income criteria into account for other activities (and resenting it when they

do), are unhappy with the YETP provisions. For the LEAs responsible for

certifying eligibility in their programs, the task of securing the appropriate

evidence is an onerous one..

The CETA-LEA conflict caused by targeting provisions is more stubborn

and irreconcilable than the academic credit conflict, It is symptomatic of

the divergent goals that local sponsors)and local schools serve. Aside

from the furidamental goal conflicts which make basic institutional change

difficult, neither LEAs nor prime sponsors have much maneuvering room for

working out an accomodation. LEAs are not in pdlitically defensible positions

if they shift large amounts4of resources to serving only economically

disadvantaged youth. Likewise, prime sponsors are not in a legally (nor

in many cases, politically) *defensible position to serve non-economically

disadvantaged youth.

Previous reports documented the difficulties in the first year that

were encountered because of late starts and the incompatibility of the CETA

funding year and the school year. Although many orthem were one-time startup problems, and the incompatibilities can be overcome even if they cannot

be eliminated, they are a source of tension. In DeKalb County, an LEA

administrator was very irate over uncertainties about the amount of money and

when it would be available. In Lane County, though the LEAs are receptive

to the goals of YEDPA and working with the prime sponsor, they .had only

three weeks to develop their,1979.plan and so could not make major changes.

YEDPA guidelines, appropriately, do not go very far in specifying.

how sponsors should develop LEA agreements or who in the schools they should..

work with. But in a hierarchy as stratified as the public school system, the

matter of who in the schools works with sponsor staff, and how they feel

about YEDPA may also be determinants of program-success.

Returning to North Carolina once again as an example, state level

leadership has had little effect on how popular local programs have been or

on whether academic credit was awarded. But in earlier reports, it was found

that despite the low opinion that one principal had of YETP, a vocational

educator with direct responsibility for the program in that principal's

school was very enthusiastic and supportive. There are other instances of

.divergencies among tie state, county/disthctriand school leyels that support

an image of poor communisation and interrupted authority and guidance with

respect to school polities on CETA-LEA ventures.

18
- 9 -

Within individual schools, activities under LEA agreements are . usually located in the vocational education area. The programs based on

vocational education are important for shifting enrollments more towards

underachievers who, in the past, have not been served well in that area.

But to "the extent that schools have'had prior experience with CETA prime

sponsqs, much of it has been through secondary vocational education and postsecondary vocational/technical schools.

The activities that offer the potential for the greatest departure

from past joint CETA-LEA activities, are those run through the non-vocational

education Components of LEAs. They are bringing a different group of LEA

staff into contact with CETA. .In some LEAs, like one in Westport, Connecticut

which works with the Balance of State sponsorship, the school work study

counselor and headmaster provide access,to the schools. But usually counselin

staff is avoided because they are considered to be already overworked. Instead

the emphasis has been,on the career education area, where there is popular

interest in linking education and employability development. Some of the

activities developed under the LEA agreements are adapted to career education

material and vice versa. The danger here is that the career education-YEDPA

activities will coopt the energies that might better be used to channel

underachievers or potential drop-outs who are YEDPA clients into more

appropriate educational activities such as remedial education. It is not

at all clear that YEDPA is having an effect on changing the way schools do

part of their traditional work in contrast to adding on some new roles.

YEDPA Clients in 1978 . YEDPA is most important for its focus,on youth. But local sponsors

have a large degree of discretion in choosing which youth to serve: economically

disadvantaged or non-disadvantaged; in- school or out-of-school; handicapped

or non-handicapped, and so forth. Because of the rangeof options, the

Departmentsof Labor stressed,certain priorities in the hope that sponsors

would divert YEDPA,rtsources to those most in need: economically disadvantaged

youth and drop =outs for YCCIP and in-school for YETP. Prime sponsors

adopted the national priorities for their own rhetoric and developed targeting

strategies. The results, however, were not the same for all sponsors.

Comparing Enrollments in YCCIP and YETP

As YEDPA was being implemented,. there was concern among national

polic3pkers for whether all the effolVs.of present YCCIP and YETP as discrete

approaches would actually result in programs that could.be differentiated at

the local level. one way of determining whether the programs are perceived

as serving different purposes is to see whether they served different

clienteles. In fact, a breakdown of client characteristics for YCCIP. and

YETP enrollments shows. significant and systematic differences between the

two program populations. In YCCIP nearly three out of every four enrollees

were, male, compared to roughly one out of two for YETP. Sponsors enrolled a

19
- 10 -

slightly larger proportion of non-white youth in YCCIP. Four-fifths of the

YCCIP enrollees were out of school compared to two-fifths of the YETP enrollees.

The ditaggregated figures tell a more complete story, however, about . the specific program characteristics that differentiate YCCIP and YETP. They

also offer insights into prime sponsor targeting policy and the interaction . of targeting choices and program activity choices.

YCCIP was,intended-by national policymekers to 'be a work experience

program, short On frills, but Tong on well-supervised jobs with tangib,le outputs.

Nominally targeted for 16-19 year old,jobless youth, it was envisioned that

YCCIP would serve mostly out-of-school youth -- drop-outs and graduates. In fact, while the aggregate enrollment data bear out the emphasis's on out-ofschool youth, in-schoolers'outnumbered out-ofigchoolers in nearly a quarter

of the sponsors studied, and students comprise t least a third of the ICCIP

enrollments for most prime sponsors. Many of the sponsors' programs with

high in- school enrollments in YCCIP are tun by local schools. The patterns

there reflect'a mixture of deliberate policy to serve an in-school population,

and to a lesser extent, an incidental fact that schools are serving those

clients they know best and are able to recruit best. El Paso and Clark County

both decided to focus YCCIP on in-school youth,and involved LEAs as pr am agents for YCCIP. Detroit and Kalamazoo also relied on LEAs as YCCIP (gents

and enrolled precominantly in-school youth. But, not all the sponsors with

prefithinantly student enrollment in YCCIP had schools conduct YCCIP activities.

Albuquerque, Coastal Bend, Sonoma, Oakland, Marin and Lane all relied on

CBOs or public park/land management agencies. However, nearly all of these,

as well as the school-run YCCIP projects, augmented the work components with

training, extended orientation, or career exploration components.

Services beyond straight work experience were not confined to programs

serving students. Sponsors enriched YCCIP even in areas where out-of-school t

youth was the predominant target. There, however, junior colleges and

community colleges were frequently involved, especially where academic credit

was awarded.

Unfortunately, because of certain design characteristics of YCCIP,

prime sponsoR enrollments are heavily Male. The concentratioron drop-outs is

identified popularly as one contributingifactor. It is asserted that because

a lower proportion of young females than males drop dut of high school for the

e/

purpose of going to work, the population of 16-19 year of drop-outs interested

*in work is mostly male. In fact, there appears to be ve y little relationship

between the proportion of drop-outs'and proportion of f males in YCCIP

enrollments. What appears to be more important is_tile emphasis on deloting

YCCIP lobs to producing tangible outputs. This policy skews the job

distribution 'n favor. of construction, maintenance, and other traditionally

male occup ons (See Figure A). Despite the efforts of prime sponsors to

*
I

100%

80S

60%

40S

20%

Figure A,

al' 4H- ,-"-

, L.

0

-_- e -_. -..::_. -- _r.

...

:-

... --... 0 _ -_, 1_.

.7.--- L-1---"14-- L: . --1 0 . 0 - ...

- e L-4- -i' 0 I.'

. ,----7------

.1 e

F

--...- C., 7. ..el '

' ,. --- -"...-'7"-.- C . i

i 1 ' 1 ' 6: : . . , , .

,

' 6 ' r - -.==......1.: :-..-1...---

t---..,......' ;...._.:. 41

; ' ..L.Lt...-.....'

-_:----!.-7.-1..--...- a . _...H _ L," =-_, . _ _ _._-.....--.._:. -.

. . ,....._ _LT....I.-. -1-' ''' ''.1---1 ---"÷-

.:.. -T'''" .._......, ....._,,_.,

,.. = -......1

. . H,!_b

Percent dropout enrollment in YCCIP

20% ap% 60% 80% 100% \ , 47- place females in those occupations? -ortly 29 percent of the YCCIP enrollmentS

of sponsors in this evaluation (25 percent nationally) were females. The

exceptions, areas, where YCCIP had a large proportion of females, help prove

the point.

To the extent that YCCIP activities were not in are-as that invo ved

male-dominated ortcupations, they enrolled more femal-E. Marin, -Kalamazoo,

-Northeast.Georgiathe only prime sponsors whose YCCIP enrollments, were

predominantly female; ajl,had YCCIP activities thatdid not entail much

building rehabilitation, winterization, or construction/maintenance. Instead,

they were more service oriented. The two largest projectsqb Marin were

pregnancy praVention,and servi outreach. Northeast Georgia's YCCIP project

had a car entry component a d a Tar er day.care component. There were no

females 911 th carpentry project, and only one male in the day cpre project. . Kalamazoo's Y CIP never got up to full strength because the main project there

was cancell . BA the balance-of the program, which was more than three-.

quarters f ale, was concentrated in the social servicearii,

Even the male /female distributions for sponsors with-high proportions

of males overstate the success that sponsors had enrolling females in nontraditional jobs. This is because many of the spbnsors that enrolled at least

a few females, sponsored YCCIP projects that included service activity featuring

work assignments that were not male dominated occupations. Eastern Middlesex,

1for example, supported an Alcohol Awareness YCCIP project. Boston, sponsored

one in which youth were assisting elderly persons in -their homes.' Other

sponsors, sponsorjng a multitude of small projects with their YCCIP funds,

had similar social service components.

21
0

It does not appear-that sponsors ,were following a policy of keeping

females out etraditionallY male occupations: Some of them went to great

lengths attempting to enroll females, counseling, persuading, and stretching

eligibility requirements to the limit. But the efforts were not particularly

successful- because the YCCIP model does not adequately recognize the needs of

all segments of'its target population. As one evaluator said: "Prime sponsors

were unable to gear YCCIP projects to the needs of specific youth ... /they/ ...

were designed and funded first; the search for youth to fill the resulting slots

occurred second." (John Walsh,, Page J-28).

income characteristics is another point of comparison between YCCIP

and YETP enrollments. They are noteworthy becaUse the eligibility criteria for

the two programs varied. YETP enrollees must be from families whose incomes

are 85 percent of the BLS lower standard or less, but YCCIP Was more

relaxed. While sponsors are-encouraged to target it for economically

\ disadvantaged youth (from families with. income 70 percent of the BLS lower

living standard or, less), they are in fact free to enroll clients without

regard to family income.

Despite the relaxedstandardsofor YCCIP, sponsors tended to enroll

economically disadvantaged in both. Eighty-three.perdent,of the enrollments

* in YCCIP in the sponsor areas studied were economically disadvantaged compared

to 89.percent for YETP. Nationally, 84 percent of lone YCCIP enrollees were

economically disadvantaged; ironically, this was 2 .points nigher than for.

, 4

YETP.

I

In the first two reports of this euAluation (February 1978 and

August 1976), assessments investigating prime 5ponsor:plans and early operations

fqund that loCal administrators were indeed ta'geting YCCIP for econopically

desadvantaged youth. They were enrolling relatively few non-disadvabtaged

youth because there was a local policy of serving those most in need and

because to do otherwise would have been paliticallrdangerous. It is not

surprising, therefore, to see sponsors enrolling approkimately equal proportions

of economically disadvantaged youths.in'both YCCIP and YETP. In only one case

did a sponsor enroll appreciably more in YCCIP, and that ,as Albu \uerque. The

presence of an entitlement program there contributed to the relative overenrollment since the entitlement activities bnroTled a large portion of likely

YETP candidates who were economically diSadvantaged. The only other rea,1

aberration was DeKalb which reported'arolaing no economically disadvfntaged

youth in YCCIP and 67 percent in YETP. But the YCCIP program there was small

(It enrolled seven youth and cost $4,400) and a low priority for the LEA

running it.

On the Whole, there were relatively few prime sponsor operations

where fewer than 80 percent of the YETP or YCCIP enrollments were economically

disadvantaged.

22

r
4

.6 - 13 -

- Table 1

Sponsors with programs in which less than AO percent of the clients,s, were from economically disadvantaged families

Prime Sponsor . YETP YCCIP

. , Albuquerque 59% >

Atlanta . 71%

Coastal Bend . 59%

Connecticut BOS 5'61 j

Cook County U7' , 56%.

DeKalb County' . . . 67,tx* Kalamazoo County, 50%

__Marin County . tc,,, 79% .6%

Rockford 74 78%

orrected February 26, 1979

A

. , Some of the explanations for the "lpw" enrollments of economically disadvantaged

youth Parallel 'Chafe exOpining large differences between YCCIP and YETP

enrolTinents of economically disadvantaged youth, but some other factors seem

important, as well. Albuquerque, Marin,,and Connecticut 'Ba- lance of State all

encountered difficulty irk finding economically disadv antaged youth. In L.: Albuquerque the entitlement project was coral Eted in In area containing a large

proportion of the minority population in the prime. sponsorship. Marin County

is a wealthy bedroom community with one oft.th highest per family incomes in

f

the country; economically disadvantaged yout are few and far between. The

Connecticut BOS YCCIP-activities were conducted to rural areas of the state

which do not contain the pockets of extreine-peverty found in center cities.

. In Cook County.municipalities sponsoring YCCIP work experience positions were

congentnatO in relatively.well-off.areas, because poorer municipalities were

less able to sponsor YCCIP activities. This reduced participation of

economically disadvantaged youth because some of,tlie municipalities with

YCCIP slots hpd residency requirements, and.transporation to the ones withopt

residency requirements frequently was problematical. Rockford 'draws from'

an area which is not as economically hard-pressed as some other sponsorships

and does not have tA concentration of economically disadvantaged youfh that

others.have. Although both DeKalb and Atlanta coula have served more

economically disadvantaged youth, they 64ose not to, setting low targets that

they actually met or exceeded.

. ."

The relative proportion of non-white enrollments in YCCIP and.YETP,

is another point for comparing the two programs. The'data reported ein the

case studies are not sufficiently complete to support definite conclusions,

s. 23

I
- 14 -

but the aggregate data indicate fewer non-whites in YCCIP.* Disaggregating

the numbers, however, explains much of the differenttal. In the cases of

extreme differences -- more than 15 percentage points -- there are usually

some obvious explanations (Ironically, in four of seven extreme cases, the

proportion of non-white youth is greater in YCCIP than in YETP).

Clark County's YETP activities were run in the city of Springfield

where the low income population is predominantly black; the YCCIP prOject was

handled bythe LEA in the rural area of the county surrounding Springfield

Where the population is virtually all white (a CBO in the city of Springfield

was selected to run the YCCIP project for 1979). DeKalb's figures ought not

be teen seriously since YCCIP was so small. There is some distortion in the

Oakland figures because youth counted as white include Hispanic youth. Rut

there, as in Waterbury, the presence of the schools in YETP and their absence

in YCCIP, may be having efforts (although opposite*.for the

in

on enrollment

'differentials. Portland's YCCIP enrollment is concentrated in a largely

minority center tity.area, and 77 percent of theenrollment consists of

schoo. leavers. Minority enrollment is 16 points higher there than in.YETP

where qe activities are aimed,more for in-school youth end cover a much wider

oeograp4Ocal area. Rockford's YCCIP imiarly concentrates on drop-outs in an

72 area that is disproportionately nonwhite. ,t

The differences irreqroilment patterns for the other sponsors,do not

appear to follow\any systematit pattern. Local administrators, however, have'

cited two pressures that could influence minority enrollments for'YETP and

YCCIP where the programs are targeted for different areas ot provide different

services.

On pressure is to keep EOPA,from being seen as arlextensign of

public assistance and social s.erGTEilrograms. This was a concern cited

among spon4ors :=1,11 North Carolina and-Georgia, two areas where poverty is most

acute among blaCks and where the welfare system is seen as serving a , predominantly black population. Northeast Georgia planners have hoped to

appeal to white economically disadvantaged youth as well as black youth. In Charlotte,-vendors who had been accustomed to serving black youth in other

CETA programs *ere 'instructed on how to recruit white youth as well. In both

these areas, nonwhite enrollments have been in excess of'75 percent (and their

proportion in the eligible population), so the emphasis on getting a better

racial mix makes sense. -Sponsors in Oregon and Washington expressed a

different kind of concern as CETA -- through YCCIP and YETP -- expands its

institutional base and provides for more than work experience and income.

It is related to the concern of LEA officials who are reluctant to target

by income. They believe that as youth services emphasize much more than income

transfer (an implicit objective of SPEDY), income criteria do not capture all

the elements of need: They think that as services expand to drop-out prevention'

*Becabse the prime sponSors in tit study include areas with heavy

representations of minority, youth, the minority enrollments are not representative

of eiiitllments for all sponsors nationally. Furthermore, national enrollment

data do not indicate different proportions of non-white enrollment for YETP

and YCCIP.

24

A

VGA
° - 15 -

and career development,- eligibil should hinge'dn other criteria in order

to permit enrollment of non-economically disadvantaged youth who also lack

alternatives. Officials in Connecticut expressed similar concerns.t

ti

Matching Services to Client Need

Presumably, one of the reasons for identifying target groups is to

compensate for the fact that Particular would-be clients would.othewise not

receive services they'need. But, aside from enrollments of groups such as'

women, drop-outs, economically disadvantaged and minority youth, the performance

of prime sponsors in targeting services to_those with special needs and adapting

services to meet special ,needs was lackluster. It does not appear that

targeting' provisions provided any more assurance that target group clients

would.be enrolled than in the absence of such provisions. Most prime sponsors

identified target groups that would in all likelihood be enrolled in YEDPA, and

they specified enrollment goals that they would very likely have reached in the

absence of special provisions,, given the distribution of such groups, in the

eligible population. Many, for example, identified as a significant segment

,youth from families receiving public assistance. Given the close ties .that

many sponsors have with local social service agencies, they had no trouble

enrolling these youth. Greene targeted services for'4poverty youth," in-school

°youth, ex-offenders, in-school special education clients, and drop-outs. But

'because the LEAwas given a large role in client recruitment, the sponsor,fell

short ondrop-out and ex-offender enrollments. Clark County added Spanish

speaking and native Americans as target groups after the fact Joy virtue of

serving them. Similarly, in Atlanta, a city in which I6-,000 youth 'w re arrested

in 1926, planners hoped to enroll 26 young offenders in YCCIP. Howev no special steps were taken to reach this population, so'only five were act filly

enrolled.

There were some exceptions in which "targeting" goals were morethan

wishes or guesses about likely enrollment distributions, in which deliberate

steps were taken to reach specific groups, and in which services were adapted . to special needs of target segments. Atlanta, with a 1 percent Hispanic

population, identified Spanish speaking youth as a target group after a

Hispanic CBO was chosen as a YCCIP agent. Spanish speaking youth comprise

about 3 percent of the YCCIP enrollment there. In Lansing, 21 percent of its

YCCIP enrollees were ex-offenders. Lane County undertok a special effort to

serve ex-offenders and capttalized On its established linkages with the

juvenile correction agency there*they comprise 28 percent oil its YETP

enrollments. Lane County algO designated mentally retarded youth as a

significant segment and designed a program matching retarded individuals with

other YETP clients for training and work,experience. As an outgrowth of a

local goal to make YEDPA "... become more influential in shifAngthe priority

from work to school," Rockford has designated a new target: those with less

41an a high school education. The group includes "drop-outs" but is identified

in such a way as to be matched with local programming that depends heavily on

directing the youth back into schdol.

25
.6 - 16-

Except *in a minority of cases such as these, sponsors d4d not

carefully consider their choice of target groups and establish specific

outreach strategies adapted to penetrating the target groups. And again, with

few exceptions, sponsors did notgoAuch beyond what the Department of Labor

required in adapting program services to the' needs of particular target groups.

Interaction of,YEDPA and SPEDY

In every year. since 1965, the federal government, first through the

Office of Economic Opportunity and later the DepartifientAof Labor,,has supported

a summer employment program for economically disadvantaged youth. Before the

Comprehensive Employment and Training Act,,the summer programs Were conducted

as,an extension of the NeighborhoOd Youth Corps In-School programs. Since the

_summer of 1974,(ihe Summer Program for Economically Disadvantaged Youth (SPEDY))

has been funded'as a special purpose national pro r4 until Title III of CETA

(Title IV of CETA as amended in 1978').

After thirteen seasons, SPEDY and its predecessors have been marked

by a number of Patterns. Although the programs have been virtually assured

every year, details on alloca eligibility, andfther regulAions-rarely

have been promulgated earli than mid-Spring. This has made it diffidult for

local administrators to inc rporate certain important information into their

strategic planning. Once a locations and regulations have been announced,

local planning has been aerushed process of preparing grant applications and

bringing,program.details into compliance with regulations.

The summertprograms have been hastily implemented, marked by the

--sudden enrollments of large numbers of yoUths to work in short duration

(8-10 weeks) jobs. The challenge of the logistics of starting pp a short-te

program that increases local youth manpower program enrollmentg' by an order

of magnitude of up to ten, and seeing that _enrollees get worksite assignments

and at least minimal supervision and paychecks has been formidable, complicating

the task of providing high quality work experience and matching job assignments

yith,enrollee interests. ,Where there has been recognized need,for mid-program

changes, they have been hard to implement in time to take effect.

/ Because of the size, the emphasis on work experience, and the

logistical problps that characterize the summer programs, they have taken on

a character of their own and have not been Coordinated with other programs to

any great extent. Furthermore, befOre 1978, there were no year-round

programs (except for the Wghborhood In-School Program) aimed at the same

population the summer programs have Served. Youths have 'been the biggest

participant group in CETA title training programs, but they have been older

than the typical summer prog am youth, have had different kinds of needs

than the summer youths'and e subject to different eligibilitY 'tests. Funding

and operational unc tainti s have also made it more expedient for local

sponsors to ke e summer Program,isolated from other manpower efforts,

thereby minim ng opportunities for-discontinuities in services, and other

disruptions caused by problems in the summer programs.

a 2&
- 17 -

Yet despite the uncertainties in federal plans for the summer youth

progrims, the hectic pace of implementation, the, crash style of administration,

and the isolation from other manrbwer programming, the summer youth program has

achieved, over the years,some degree of suiccess. It has evolved into a stable,

well-oiled component of local programming.lBefore the advent of YEDPA, it

had reached the point where it provided in a reliable way some work experience

(of uncertain value) and earned income for program enrollees. In 1978 SPEDY

provided part of the basis for expanded./ year-round programming for youth

that was encouraged by YEDPA. There is some evidence that as a result of the

presence of YCCIP and YETP, thes1978 summer youth program was different from

and improved over earlier programs.

SPEDY Planning and Implementation

Planning and implementation of the 1978 SPEDY program demonstrated

"the benefits of some consistency in basic program parameters. Although the

summer grant application package and regulations were not.available to prime

sponsors until mid-May, the delays had ,no apparent effect on program designs,

°because planning took place largely independent df the grant application

process. In Portland, the former SPEDY manager noted that local ''administrators

"... started getting ready early this year and had more planning time than

ever before." (Bonnie Snedeker, Page 1-19). A planner in Chicago said that if

planning had waited for the grant application package, it would have been too

late to get the program off the ground. To the extent planning problems were

evident, they seemed to have been a functiim of'substantive difficulties.

Because Rockford, for example, "used SPEDY to introduce a new focus on

education" (Myron Roomkin, Page G-25), the process was not as straightforward

as usual.

Not only does the process of SPEDY planning appear to/be

"institutionalized," but it appears that local planners are learning from

experience. In Atlanta, SPEDY planning was folded into overall youth planning

to save duplication and to bring some cohesion to local youth policies. Nearly

everywhere, overall enrollment plans were much closer to actual enrollments

than under YETP or YCCIP. Even in Columbus, whereYETP and YCCIP 'start-up

activities were beset by delays and problems, all aspects of the-local summer

plan were implemented.

Program Design

It is difficult to draw conclusions from available evidence about'

the effect of YCCIP and YETP on planning and implementation of SPEDY. It.

might be inferred, however, that the presence of YEDPA programs helped provide

a context, not present before, in which,SPEDY could be viewed as one piece

of a larger local policy. The basis for that judgment is the way in which

SPEDY was connected with other youth programs. SPEDY has been conducted in

the past as an independent program, isolated from other CETA activities.

27
- 18 -

This year it appears that local planners capitalized on some of the complementarities

between SPEDY and YEDPA programs As the basis for linkages and as a basis for

adaptations in SPEDY program designs.

4

0 In the past SPEDY has been characterized almost exclusively as a work

experience program. It enrolled large numbers of youth, pushed them through

a 25-hour per week, 8-week work experience and terminated them. The popular

wisdom was that time did not permit quality jobs and that the overall experience

was most useful for its income transfer results. Although there were no

miraculous breakthroughs on job quality this year, two adaptations were found.

One we the model in which YETP clients participating in_enriched work experience

programs stayed on the same job site, but were paid from SPEDY funds. The

other was thq model in which summer-only enrollees received the usual worV

experience assignment, but also took part in career exploration programs/

The YEDPA enrollees who transferred' into SPEDY for the summer, in

fact, stayed on their "year-round" worksites, but were paid with SPEDY funds.

In most cases, youths had their work schedules expanded from 10-15 hours per

week to 25-30 hours per week. Hourly wages usually remained the same. Of

the YEDPA enrollees who transferred to SPEDY, most were from YETP activities,

because YETP serves a predominantly.in-school population. YETP-SPEDY-YETP

transfers were adopted by some local sponsors as a matter of policy and

occasionally as a matter of necessity when sponsors were forced to carry 1978

funds into 1979. A staffer in Kitsap County said that "... being able to

transfer YETP and YCCIP participants to SPEDY saved our necks ...." (Bonnie

Snedeker, Page 1-20). The tandem arrangeMent provided a continuum for enrollees_

who wanted sustained work experience. For the contractors it meant more

administrative continuity and the opportunity to work out bugs. . There were some prime sponsors, however, that worked to keep YCCIP

and YETP activities and enrollees separate. Albuquerque and El Paso kept

YCCIP and YETP entirely separate from SPEDY and Title I youth activities.

Clark County had actually planned for close integration between SPEDY and the . year-round YETP. The regional office, however, apparently at variance with

national policy, stepped in saying that such integration could not be done and

that the programs had to be kept separate.

Even where SPEDY was viewed as a separate program, and may or may not

have been part of a service continuum for youth, prime sponsors frequently

z linked it with YETP and sometimes YCCIP through administrative measures. In Clack County, for example, where the federal representatives had ruled out any

formal links`between SPEDY and YETP, the sponsor moved SPEDY-bound YETP

enrollees from one program to another with a change of status notice. It also

used its central intake as an early decision point to decide whether new

applicants should be referred to the work experience of SPEDY or the more varied

career exploration services of YETP. The location of SPEDY worksites at

YETP worksites and the use of the same contractors to deliver SPEDY and YETP

also blurred the distinction between the two programs. In Grand Rapids, twothirds of the YEDPA contractors delivered SPEDY programs. The consortium has

encouraged this kind of consolidation by issuing a single request for proposal

fortYCCIP, YETP.and SPEDY.

28
- 19 -

Regardless of how SPEDY was handled, its program design was affected

by YETP. Because of the cross-fertilization, this year's summer program was

more than the customary straight work experience. Greene County, for example,

ran SPEDY completely independent of YETP, but departed from past practices by

providing vocational education experience'and labor market information to

participants. The SPEDY orientation was modeled after the YETP world-of-work

introduction. In the Lansing Consortium, planners fashioned SPEDY after the

career employment experience activities in thp YETP in-school program. The

carry-over of program styles was enhanced by contracting with the YETP

deliverers for the summer program. In Atlanta planners refunded with SPEDY

money YETP career exploration projects whose program cycles had been completed.

Cobb County also expanded its summer program beyond work experience, providing

a career exploration reading program and a small vocational exploration

component, both similar to components of their YETP programs. Even in Detroit,

where a sponsor administrator explained that the usual contractors were delivering SPEDY, there were more provisions for ancillary services than in

the past.

It appears that in an effort to upgrade SPEDY, the strategy is to

shift its emphasis from straight work experience to a greater mixture of

services that capitalizes on YETP experience. But the transition is not without

its potential pitfalls. First, less work experienCe may not be desirable

for the predominately in-school population that SPEDY is serving. A counselor

in the Lansing Consortium was concerned about it taking on "too much of a

school mentality" (_Peter Kobrak, Page C-31) in serving youths who need a break from the regimen of school. Staffers in Portland also complained that

enriched programs were not able to compete with straight work experience; the

implication is that if SPEDY changes too much to a mixed service program, it

may lose some of its popularity among 'youths. A second pitfall of this strategy

is that the emphasis oft enriched services may be diverting energy from efforts

to improve,the quality-of summer work experience. < 4 Seriice-Seeking Strategies of Youth

I With the proliferation of youth-programs permitting different service

components, eligibility standards, and occasionally pay rates, youths might

be encouraged to shop for programs. In fact, this did not occur very much in

1978. During the summer, although programs were somewhat differentiated with

respect to qualitative aSpects-of design, they were not well differentiated

with respect to wages or hours. But, where work experience, program activities,

wage rates or hour of work were well differentiated, youths shopped unless

restrained by administrative measures.

In the majority of prime sponsorships, all programs paid minimumwage and provided equal hours of work. Youths did not try to go from one

program to another. The exceptions are instructive, however. Hartford,

which switched enrollees from YETP to SPEDY as a matter of course, had a higher

wage structure for YCCIP. However, since the YCCIP projects include a training

component and are set up on fixed cYCles, the sponsor prohibited transfers from

29
- 20 -

SPEDY to YCCIP. There was no problem with a reverse flow. In Waterbury, all

jobs paid the minimum wage, but the SPEDY jobs permitted more hours of work

each week. As a consequence of the differential, well over half of the in- 4 school enrollees switched to SPEDY. Marin County encountered a similar

situation in which its SPEDY program offered more hours of work. During the

summer, the YETP termination rate there was much higher than anticipated.

Qualitative differences between SPEDY and other youth jobs also

affected :job seeking strategies of youths though, to.-a 'lesser extent. In

Cobb Countyl.YCCIP participants dropped out of jobs that-actually paid-more and

subsequ$ntly took SPEDY jobf. The YCCIP jobs were physically demanding and

included-maintenance and cleaning. The SPEDY jobs offered'a greater choice

of worksites and work assignments. In El Paso, year-round jobs paid the same,

but youth9 transferred to SPEDY because the summer jobs were seen as being

easier and more enjoyable. Where summer programs were not greatly enriched

with career exploration classes and counseling, prime sponsors anticipated

youth leaving the comprehensive YETP programs for more work experience with

SPEDY. The sponsors, accordingly,, took steps to prevent such transfers. Planners

in Cobb County, anticipating that youth would try to avoid the academic components

of YETP, prohibited transfers from 'YETP to SPEDY. Santa Clara put in similar

restrictions.

Who Did SPEDY Serve?

Prime sponsors consistently reached or exceeded their planned overall

enrollment levels for the summer program. The differing eligibility standards

for YCCIP, YETP, and SPEDY did not cause the problems with interprogram transfers

that some observers had feared because sponsors' had enrolle4amostly economically

disadvantaged youth in YETP and YCCIP; consequently, transf&s,had no trouble

meeting the SPEDY eligibility standards. Furthermore; the universe of need,

large relative to the number of jobs SPEDY could provide, remained unfilled in

most areas. Even Albuquerque,rwIth its Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot

Project competing for youths-to fill jobs, had no trouble finding eligible

youths for summer jobs. In an effort to expand the number of available jobs,

Chicago SPEDY administrators set up a two-tier program providing reduced hours

of work to youths under 16. The city created enough jobs to serve 46,000

youths -- 119 percent of plan -- and still turned away eligible applicants.

One exception to the high actual /planned performance of SPEDY was Clark County

which barely broke 80 percent of plan. Though.fewer'enrollees than possible .* were enrolled, the sponsor did serve more youth than in any previous summer

program. : Prime sponsors did well in meeting their overall enrollment targets,

but showed mixed performance in serving some subgroUps. As anticipated, SPEDY

concentrated heavily on An in- school population. This pattern was reinforced

by the practice of transferring to SPEDY large numbert of youth in YETI', which

serves mostly an in-school Apulation. But, for the sponsors singling out

drop-outs for special attention, none reached their planned level. Connecticut

Balance of State, for examp/d, reached qnly'12 percent of plan; Kitsap less

than 5 percent and Portland -4 percent.

30
- 21 -

A surprising number of prime sponsors put a special* emphasis on

serving youths under 16 years. The emphasis took the shape of efforts to

recruit 14-15 year olds and special programs for that age group. Because the

entitlement project in Albuquerque concentrates on serving 16-18 year olds,

administrators were able to enroll greater numbers of younger youth than ever

before. Rockford, learning from past summers when they had large numbers of

14-15 year old eligibles, carved out a special summer_program for them,

featuring and a-greater- emphatit-&classroom and other experience

for whiCh academic credit could be awarded. The North Carolina Balance of State

sponsor, recognizing a need for early work experience, and the limited

opportunity that 14-45 Y4ar olds have for gaining such experience with nongovernment employe , targeted all its SPEDY pftjects on that group of

youngsters.

The emphasis on 14-15 year olds does have its problems, however, when

it comes to work experience. They are the least job-ready and face the most

legal restrictions on the hours and kind of work they can do. Greene County,

the only sponsor in the sample to evaluate the comparative quality of summer

jobs for 14-15 year olds, found that the summer jobs were markedly inferior

to the YETP jobs for older youth, and blamed the differences qT restrictions

on the kind of work that 14-15 year olds can perform.

Effects of SPEDY/YEDPA Interaction

There is evidence that YCCIP and YETP had a positive impact on the

1978 SPEDY program. It was enriched with components going beyond the usual

summer work experience, and it appeared to be able to capitalize on the

stability of the year-round programs. But there were signs that it might be

d mistake to simply downplay the part of work experience in SPEDY. As it

stands now, SPEDY has a following among youths. looking for nothing more than

a summer job; it is a following that could be alienated, especially if the

rather modest expectations of a popular, short-term work experience program

were replaced with the higher expectations of a hill-htested model for

enriched services.

Cutting in the other direction, it appears that YEDPA might learn

from the history of the summer youth program. The basic predictability of

the program has encouraged a self-starting local-plannina process, generally

smooth administration, and a modest ability to try innovation.

Local Accountability

Undera system of decentralized, decategorized service delivery,

local CETA sponsors are more than local offices for spending federal dollars.

The basic federal policy set forth in YEDPA, for example, is seen simply'as

the base on which local policymakers build programs adapted to local needs.

Accountability in the system is at two levels. On one level, local sponsors are

31
-22-

) accountable to the Department of Labor to comply with the laws and federal

regulations governing client eligibility, local participatibn and clearance

procedures, allowable costs, program activities and reporting requirements.

At another level, there is assumed accountability to local policymakers, a

mandate for local sponsors to assure that their programs are adapted to local

conditions and responsive to local needs.*

In the course of prime sponsor implementation of YETP and YCCIP, the

notion of accountability has evolved much the same.way it has evolved throughout

the development of CETA. Mechanical compliance with federal standards has

taken precedence over attention to the impact of local initiatives. With a

few exceptions, success at the local level is still measured in terms of. whether prime sponsors get their allocation, enroll suffidient numbers of

clients, and, perhaps most importantly, keep their noses clean., This pattern

has important implications for how local sponsors collect data, the importance,

they attach to is accuracy, and the way local experimentation and evaluation

is carried out.

Prime SpOnsor Data

Theltind and quality of data to which prime sponsors have access

.varies across prime sponsors and according to the kind of data. Demographic

data on universe of need and economic data for describing local conditions are

not checked carefully for accuracy simply because they do not form a basis for

any real decisionmaking. Earlier reports on implementation of YEDPA have

documented both the unreliability and inaccuracy of the data, and their lack

of utility. Decennial census data are badly outdated. Prime sponsor

jurisdictional lines frequently do not follow SMSA lines and state and local

government agency administrative data are not considered reliable. Not needing

the data-for their own purposes, local planners readily pass along, whatever

is available as'a gesture of compliance, since they have neither the time nor ' inclination to generate anything on their own, nor the need to,use it.

Eligibility data, a subset of the client characteristics data that

sponsors report to DOL,as well as activity data and cost data which all

prove important in demonstratingsponsor conformance to laWs, regulations and

their own plans, are 0 different story. The stakes are clear and the

incentives,' therefore, more compelling. Paycheck errors, of course, receive

fast attention because sponsors hear about them quickly. Some sponsors,go to

lengths to assure accuracy of data in which errors are not so obvious nor the

consequences so immediate. In determining eligibility, some require W-2

statements from employers, caseload reports from social workers or verification

from schools, in addition to signed statements from Arents.

*There is a larger issue of accountability, which will be taken up in the

final report, and that is the aspect-which pits the local agenda against the

national agenda. When looking at ithat aspect of accountability, a major - consideration how prime sponsors can in reality serve local priorities while

appearing to serve national priorities.

32
-23-

Program data are subject to a number of sources of error. Some of it

can be attributed to the newness of YEDPA. It brought with it new categories

of clients, different eligibility requirements, and more complicated requirements

for breakdowns on age, education, and labor force status. This has meant new

definitions for program personnel to learn, and during the break-in period,

errors have been frequent. Northeast Georgia and Cobb County, both relying on

the Georgia Department of Labor for their data processing, have found errors

in their reports that it appears can be traced to the unfamiliarity of local

and state staff with details of YEDPA. The use of subcontractors and the new

role for LEAs have introduced new players to the manpower business and there is

an expected break-in period for those personnel, as well as resistance to what

some see as unnecessary red tape.

The information systems are another source of error. Again, the

newness of YEDPA seems to bethe cause, but the problem is compounded here,

because the bugs in'the system liMit the evaluation and data analysis

capabilities of sponsors. Oregon BOS is forced to rely on bi-weekly telephone

updates from subcontractqrs to verify accuracy of operation reports. The

prime sponsors in Michigan are noted for putting a great deal of energy into

assuring that.the data in their systems are accurate, but the payoffs seem to

provide sufficient justification: Muskegon and Kalamazoo staffers point to

high ratings on DOL field audits as the payoff; Grand Rapids can boast of

never having a disallowed cost.

About half the prime sponsors collect data beyond that required by

the Department of Labor. Some go beyond the requigemerits by calling for

monthly progress reports. Others require more extensive detail on program

operations, client characteristics and client post-program activities.

The prime sponsors requiring more than the minimum kinds of data

usually do so for some evaluation purposes. Muskegon, for example, requires

participants and supervisors to evaluate one another monthly. Clark County

requires additional information and data breakdowns akwell as more qualitative

assessment from both its.sponsor information system and its contractors as a

guide to overall management. Greene County interviews participants;

supervisors, program directors, counselors and intake workers for the purpose

of assessing operations, program content, and impact on participants. In

DeKalb and Northeast Georgia, the prime sponsors go no further than collecting

614 required data, but the LEAs with contract authority are building a more

extensive data base so they can measure participant performance. Atlanta

compiles data weekly on terminations and enrollments in anticipation of doing

an analysis'of planned versus actual performance. It is not clear, however,

that the collection of extra data, per se, gives a prime sponsor an edge.

Rather, it only seems symptomatic of more conscientious management.

Knowledge Development and Evaluation

At a more sophisticated level of accountability, local sponsors stress

the importance of 'assuring program effectiveness. But this kind of accountability

is relatively rare. It is not required and the rewards are fewer. Measuring

33
is4 -24- 14 program results is more difficult than keeping financtal,atcounts straight and , the findings much less definitive. The "Knowledge Development" mandate

t

encouraging prime sponsors to irheir

initiatives on enrollees. While the

is an attempt to make local administrators

more sensitive to the.effects o

mandate does little to increase the explicit rewards for local experimentation,

it does providesome models for innovation and Stresses the implicit value of

examining program results and modifying operations accordingly.

The first year of experience with knowledge developmgnt_prov4des-fewexamples of well documented innovations that Were utefia to local,policymakers.

While the knowledge development mandate.wat not especially successful in the

first year in establishing worthwhile local experimentation, it did npdge

'local sponsors one step closer to trying linnOvative approaches and documenting'

the results of them. -Knowledge development did not provide a forMula for

Sudden change, but it shows signs of stimUlating longer-term-,change. Detroit,

lacking definite plans for knowledge development last year, 011,test-the /

effectiveness of a performance-based syste# of accountability in the design ylf

an alternative education system for youth.' After a disappointing follow-up,

to a plan in which contractors were to undertake-their own knowledge development,

Grand Rapids is trying a similar approach again, only with monitoring by

staff.

In some cases, relatively sophisticated plans were scrapped in favor

of simpler tests. Clark County originally planned to test the impact of YGGIP

on increasing school, retention. That plan has been discarded, however, in

favor of a more modest -- and probably more useful -- plan to interview

participants to get their impressions about the program and its effect on

their behavior. Oregon Balance of State tried a mixed income test for

fiscal 1978, but was unable to test for a number of important variables. The

original design was dropped in favor of a more qualitative approach to assessing

pro'gram performance. Next year Oregon will try to compare_ the relative

effectiveness of programs'with and without academic credit.

There were some first year.successes. Lane County, another sponsor

which attempted a fairly sophisticated design to test the results.of pairing

retarded youth with normal (YETP eligible) youth, abandoned Its original

research design, but nevertheless came up with. results that were worked into

1979 programming. Kitsap County, after establishing the value of individual

learning plans, is adopting them ,for offter..youth programming. What is more

notew thy than the-Specific findings is tWfact that the first year's

exper1ce is.forming a jumping off point for further innovation. For the

sponsor hips in which first year experiende did not pan gut; local evaluators

are willing to try different tactics that appear better suited to local purposes.

o In the previous'two reports on YEDPA implementatibn:the prime sponsor

reaction to. the "Knowledge Development" mandate.otYEDPA was analyzed. The

emphasis on trying innovative program approaches, documenting the results and

divihing some lessons has met with mixed results. But in order to gauge the

likely useability of knowledge development and to gauge the impact could

have eventually on prime sponsor operations, it ,is instructive to see what

they are already doing in the name of evaluation, since that is an activity with

the potential of taking sponsors beyond the concern with day-to-day operations.

34
o. -25-

At a minimum, prime s nsor evaluation encompasses monitoring

subcontractors and overall prime ttual performante and comparing it

to planned performance. Where adtual performance deviates significantly, from

iolanneeperformance, corrective action is taken either to alter performance

or modify the planning figures on,file with the Department of LOOT.. Although

the principal purpose of monitoring is enforcement, many prime sponsors carry

evaluation far beyond that level. Charlotte is spending,more on-administration

in fiscal 1979-than before, partly so that local,administrat0s,oan get a'

_clear idea of how good their work experience is. Each subcontractor is visited

at- least once, and some.two or 'three times a week, so that stafferz_are

I thoroughly familiar with operations. Clark County, taking advantage of the . cohesion that comes with a small staff and a central intake unit, is able to

keep the entire top staff apprised of progress with the youth-programs.

Weekly site visits are made to monitor subcontractors and provide the basis

for a.runhing accountof operations. . Therbad press,that CETA has received has, no doubt, provided much of

the impetus for monitoring`and "process" evaluation that sponsors are doing.

But a comprehensive evaluation system needs to be able to provide diagnosis in

terms of why performance is above or below.Plan, as well as details on program . results. In Clark County, the,effectiveness of evaluation'ls increased

because local, administrators have formulated operational objectives that

provide reference points for judging performance. Evaluators in Lansing,

separate from the office running the computerized information system, are responsible for running a mixed income experiMent and collected job retention

data and did a pre-post program wage analysis of participants in the sufilmer,

programs. Atlanta has contracted with outside evaluators to profile and analyze

program impacts on enrollees. Muskegon is collecting semiannual information

on achievement; client. charPacteristics and labor force status. It also

administers monthly participant,evaluations and is analyzing the components of

its deiverY system.

Despite promisingachievetents with respect to evaluationeof some sponsors, most face considerable obstacles before they -ail -1 have_well functioning

systems: The compliancgtfUnction ofevaluation commands firstattention,

because constant changes in programs and regulations keep administrators from

establishing routines. Learning and,relearning take up too much time. There

is also a laRk of vision of how to move beyond:that. Many sponsors are not

translating he ambitious goals in their plans into operational objectives.

When groups for special emphasis are identified, sponsors are not specifying

in their plans how tbey.will be enrolled. While evaluations indicate-that

performance deviates .from 151an,.they are not'particulaMy useful for -indicating

why or howethe deficiencies can be corrected. As part of its knowledge

development-plan, Portland, for example, tried to establish a' performance

contracting.system. Although quantifiable objectives and milestones have

been incorporated in prime sponsor contracts, a'lack of technidal assistancelond

ongoing monitoring limited the utility' of the project. $.

Further progress here is going to be hard. Data collection and <revaluation cost resources, time, and energy. They require an investment for %

which the payoff in improvedvrograms is uncertain and the rewards either

nonexistent or subordinate to the rewards for clean, thOugh uninspired,

management.
-26

0

The "new CETA," as'amended in late'1978, also is likely to have a

negative effect,on local efforts to evaluate program effectiveness and try..

innovative program approaches., The new regulations are complex and will

require that sponsors invest much energy to assure thgt they are it) compliance.

The heavy emphasis on stopping "fraud and abuse" is also bound to inhibit

innovation by encouraging sponsors to stick with established and Safe

;programs and not risking anythingnew. which might be more effective, .but

by its novelty, might invite more scrutiny.

The Difficulties of Spending on Target in 1978

Earlier reports have documented the variety of programs that sponsori

were able to implement on short schedules. But their accomplishments in - establishing new programs belie the difficulties many faced in sticking'to

their plans, and. in achieving sustainable enrollment and spending levels. The

ti difficulties posed by late starts were compounded by the changing national

policids. A few sponsors were able to start in January 1978, but typically,

they did not get underway until March or',April. Some had_ lesi than'four months

of programming in the first year.

The short 1978 program year and the expectation during late -1977 and

early 1978 that the Congress would boost sponsor allocations by 50 percent with

a half billion dollar Supplemental appropriation, dictated rapid acteleratlion

' in sponsor nrollments and spending. As start-ups were delayed, the federal

mi ' pressuref r fast enrollments intensified. By late spring, however, the

., message s reversed fortwo reasons: first, the administration decided not

to request the $500 million supplemental approAiation, and second, in face.,of

deClining youth unemployment, Pretident Carter requested new funding for

1979 youth prograMs at a level below that for 1978,based on a planned carry -in

of the 1978 funds. To meet this new mandate, the Department of Labor suggested

irP June that. sponsors carry = in 27 percent of, their 1978 allOcattons in order

y -el *axoid'program disruptions.

, On the prime sponsor level, the changing fundingjevels do not

appear to 'have done,serious long-term harm to TOcal efforts. Effects of the

shifts at the national level were damped out,by slow and unclear transmjssion

of the signals by the regional network. The effects of'sudden changg'In

. emphasis'were further diminished by implementation lags which left,most

sponsors in the position of under-spending by the beginning of the'summer. 40

Consequently, national enrollment and spending patterns in, the first year

show fairly even growth with no abrupt shifts in direction.

On the national level, aggregate spending was low enough to assure

much more than a 27 percent carry-in. It was 38 percent fo? YETP and 37 percent

for YCCIP. But it is unclear how much of that carry-in can be attributed to

the announced changes in funding levels and how much wat;'an inevitable surplus

that could not be spent because of the late programstarts.

36
q.

-27-

.While the effects of the funding changes were not as serious as

they might have been on the local level, prime sponsors were forced to make

adjustments. The precise response to the mid-June advisory dictated different

adjustment strategies according to how far sponsors had gone in implementation.

For Columbus, the slowest starting sponsor of those studied, the sighal

changes and the carry-in mandate had no effect because enrollments were

extraordinarily low. . Because of its slow start-up, Columbusowill be carrying

in sufficient funds, which when added to their 1979 allocation will increase

`YEDPA resources for 1979, despite a 33 perce llocation reduction from 1978

to 1979. Por although doing a better job f implementation than

Columbus, a so encoun red delays. A major project required an unexpectedly

long planning period.. roject clearances through the local government took

extra time, and organiz tional problems within the prime sp7nsorship put a

drag on the enrollm process. Portland had no trouble spending less than

73 percent of its 1 allocation. Cook County, which did better than

Columbus or Portland in starting up, had difficulty later in obligating all

its fUnds because of enrollment shortfalls. Consequently, the slow-down order

did not have an adverse effect there, either.

The sponsors that had slow start-ups, and then had compensated by

accelerating up to high enrollments, had to make more serious adjustments

during the summer. Oregon Balance of State peaked in June and then took July

and August to slow down. It was decided not to use SPEDY,as a safety valve,

and so spending was braked by freezing YETP enrollments and by taking pressure

off saWantees that were behind plan in their enrollments. Thanks to these

measures, it finished 1978 being able to carry in 25 percent of its 1978

allocation. . Sponsors that did not encounter extraordinary circumstances in the

early implementation phases were forced to take more deliberate action in

order to be able to carry in some .resources. After some early delays, Kitsap

got up to plan, and by early summer, planners were expecting to spend the

entire 1978 allocation. Administrators there were able to cut spending to

73 percent only by suspending YCCIP and YETP enrollments, and transferring

those clients who were eligible, into SPEDY. Chicago slowed enrollments and

used attrition to dri've down spending. Greene ,County, which reached peak

enrollment remarkably, fast, was harder-pressed than most other sponsors- when

told to carry in 27 percent of its 1978 allocation. Administrators there

transferred those YETP enrollees who were eligible into SPEDY. But since

that permitted only half the desired carry-in, a large number of the remaining

YETP enrollees were terminated from the program.

Clark County, one of the first sponsors in the country to have its

plan approved, was spending and enrolling on schedule when the carry-in

directive was received. Administrators there made the decision to continue

their course with only minor adjustments. Although the sponsor finished the

year enrolling 97 percent of the planned level, it managed to carry 14 percent

of its 1978 allocation, thanks to lower than anticipated unit costs in some

activities.

On the whole, sponsors proved resourceful when toi6ey would have

to carry funds from 1978 into 1'979. The news, although not welcomed, was

accepted as ti fact of life. The garbled spending messages and the confusion

3'7
- 28,-

cau544 by some regional' office interpretations, however, were not so palatable,

and caused a greater amount of rancor. As one field associate said: "The

point all prime sponsors would make is that they can deal with.just about any

instructions as long as they can trust in their certainty." (Myron Roomkin,

Page G-13).

Planned Versus Actual. Performance

If YEDPA were nothing more than a lump-sum increase in resources for

local employment and training programs for youth, first year planning and

operations would probably have been much easier. But YEDPA is filled with

specific mandate% and local sponsors had to exert extraordinary effort in order

to get operations_underway in fiscal 1978. Some complex program activities

required a great deal of ground work before they could start. New contractors,

eligibility criteria, organizational components, and services introduced new

variables in projecting enrollment and spending rates. The funding changes

And experience with program operations prodded sponsors to modify their

original plans repeatedly.

One way to make some sense out of the first yeat of YEDPA experience

is to compare planped and actual performance with respect to cost perenrollee.

This approach proVides some insight into weaknesses in operations and plan

estimation procedures. There are limits to how seriously such analysis can be

taken. Data used in the case studies based on those reported to the Department

of Labor on a quarterly basis are not complete foall prime sponsors. Nor

are they comparable; there is great unevenness where the reported planned data

do not ref314ct modifications in effect, definitions of program activities vary

from sponsor to sponsor. Because of shortcomings in the data, discrepancies

between planned and actual performance are not precise and comparisons between

sponsors not likely to be fruitful. But, although the analysis obscures a

good deal of detail, it reveal's issues that should be addressed. The

discrepancies are fairly reliable for flagging the variables that present the

greatest uncertainties for local planners and pose obstacles to implementation

of local programs% When considering discrepancies, together with the detailed

analysis from the case studies, patterns do emerge.

In YCCIP, a program envisioned originally as'a straight work experience

program aimed primarily at high school drop-outs, actual per-enrollee costs were

below planned levels for all of the sponsors for which data were available

(about half of those in the case studies). The vast majority of the sponsors

studied were below 80 percent of planned; nationally, per enrollee expenditures

were 62 percent of plan

High turnover and low spending produced the low ratios. Turnver

among YCCIP enrollees was higher than expected because the YCCIP jobs were

strenuous and demanding, and paid minimum wage. -The.youths served in the

jobs -- drop-outs.-- found that for the same effort, they could get better,

money elsewhere, and so they left. The lack of any non-work services such

as remedial education and counseling services, while lowering per-enrollee

costs, have contributed to high turnover. Because of the high turnover, nearly

38
- 29 -

every sponsor studied exceeded their planned enrollments, without exceeding

expenditures, driving down the planned/actual per - enrollee cost. The national

patterns were about the 'same, with fourth quarter enrollments outpacing costs

114 percent to 70 percent.

The YETP picture is more complex than that for YCCIP because YETP

#ctiOties covered 6-areas in addition to work experience: classroom training,

on-the-job training, vocational training, career awareness, transition services,

and career exploration experience. Four of these categories dominated sponsor

service matrices: classroomAtrainin§, OJT, work experience, and career

exploration experience. Of those four, work experience, and career exploration

experience were utilized most frequently.

The ratio of actual/planned per - enrollee cost for YETP varied from

sponsor to sponsor over a much greater range than in YCCIP, going from less

thAn 10 percent. to nearly three hundred percent. Ratios for most activities,

however, were in the 60-100 percent of plan range. Nationally prime sponsors

and state programs rose from 60 percent at the end df March 1978, to 92 percent

at the end of September.

The ,miscalculations in planning and the snafus in operating YETP

programs implied by these discrepancies were understandable and could be

anticipated. Many of the services were new and required contractors to

develop new capabilities. This caused delays and built in unpredictable cost

variables. With the new programs, there were also uncertainties with respect

to enrollee performance and turnover, both factors affecting costs.

- Table 2 summarizes the distribution of actual/planned perl-e/- nrollee

: cost-ratios for different activities. . Table 2

Percent of Planned Per-Enrollee Costs

Actually Spent in Fiscal Year 978

i-<50

YETP Services

51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90' 91-100 101-200 >-200 Total

Classroom Training 1. 2 2 2 3 2 1'

OJT . 3 1 1 i 2 1 8

Work Experience 2 2 1, 2 1

'"..1. 1 9

Career Exploration

Experience 2. , 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 14

Other 1 . 2 1 4

Total for YETP

Services

,

, 9 -4 4 5.

. 7

. 7. 7 4' YCCIP Work

Experience //

..-- 2 3 3

. 18
6

-30-

a

The experience of the sponsors covered in the case studies seems to

bear out the picture implied by national enrollment and spending data. They

Ahow enrollments consistently outstripping spending; cumulative enrollments

for the last quarter of 1978 exceeded plan for the two largest program

activities. Most of the sponsors reporting planned and actual enrollment

and spending finished the year at or below 100 percent of planned per-enrollee

cost. In three-fifths of the program components of those shovers, actual

enrollments not only ran ahead of spending, but exceeded plann'd enrollments.

In these cases, weTI-estajlisned local service deliverers were able to locate

and recruit.clients quickly, thanks to existing access to the'community through

other CETA activities or by vjrtue of being LEAs. Spending lagged behind

enrollments and, in nearly every case, behind plan, most frequently because

it appears that sponsors simply mis-estimated costs. But systemic 'quirks

also reduced, spending rates. Charlotte, expecting to run components through

the local schools had some difficult relations with them that hindered

implementations In Muskegon, two schools, which had been slated for

.participation, were eliminated,in a LEA reorganization. A major CB0 there ' also encountered difficulties when the state attorney general ruled that a

state match of YEDPA funds was not legal.

. Lags in spending were not always' symptomatic of bad planning or . shortcomings in overall operations. In some areas they signalled well-run

operations in which expected expenditures were not made because ofunanticipated high degrees of cost sharing with non-CEtA agencies. In

Greene County, actual spending ran lower, tthan estimates because the major

program deliverer in the area is a large CBO that was able to absorb many

6064 in its large base of operations. The sponsor was e to obtain services

at no cost from community agencies and a local 'universit111 Kalamazoo's

low spending can be attributed in large part to 0 tightly-run centralized

system of control and'monitoring, and a willingness to put pressure on the

, LEAs to-run'quality programs.

r Lane County was the only sponsor reportirib more than one activity

in which actual per-enrollee costs consistently exceeded planned costs. In only one of those activities, however, did expenditUres exceed plan. Most of

the distortion was due to underenrollments caused by late start-ups. But

unique characteristics of the programs in Lane County, seem to be an important

contributing factor. The programs, designed for a high-risk populatiOn'

(twenty-eight percent of the YETP enrollments there were young offenders),

were enrichgd with A variety of services.

The rest of the sponsors had mixed experience with regard to actual

, versus planned per-enrollee costs. In almost every case jb which they greatly

exceeded planned levels -(more than 50 percent above plan)",\the errors were

due to higher-than-expected expenditures; enrollments were close to expected

levels. For those who were under, cost miscalculations again were more

frequently a cause forkiscrepancies than were enrollment miscalculations.

, 'Looking at experience across;program activities, the most notable

1

finding was the lack ,,f success of sponsors in establishing and maintaining

on-the- ob training clomponents'for young adults. Per-enrollee costs for DJT

varied om less than 10 percent of expected per-enrollee costs to more than

4
- 31 -

200 percent, depending on who was responsible for slot development and the

precise problems encountered. The great variations are due in part to the

small numbers involved (OJT consistently was a small component -- less than

5 percent of the enrollments to any sponsor). Clark County, spending 173 percent

of the anticipated tost for an OJT slot, originally planned 10. But when the

CB0 responsible for OJT positions encountered difficulty developing slots,

that number was cut to 2. Although they were both filled, there were costs

that had to be covered for the early futile efforts. Greene County, remaining

at 2 percent, had similar difficulties; but since it used inhouse staff, it did

not pass on the extra development costs when only a few slots could be

arranged. Because OJT was a small component, its development commanded

less attention than some of the larger components. This, no doubt, restricted

accomplishments. But it is also probably not an appropriate component for

youth. As difficult as it is fon sponsors to develop OJT positions for

adults, youths are at an even greater disadvantage. One counselor asked:

"How.do you get a businessman,to take an untrained kid on an OJT when he can

get an adult just as easily from the CETA program?" (Bonnie Snedeker,

Page 1-12). In light of the 1978 experience, sponsors are reducing OJT and

inn some cases eliminating it altogether. 41444. 4

e.

41
PLANNING FOR 1979

After the ordeal of fiscar.1978 planning, prime sponsOrs hoped for

a more relaxed planning cycle for fiscal 1979. In fact, legislative and

funding uncertainties clouded the second YEDPA planning cycle, precluding

"normal" planning once again. CETA (and -YEDPA) reauthorization was riot final

until mid-October, and allocations for 1979 were not settled until even later.

But within the constraint's imposed by delays and uncertainties at the

national level, planners managed to make changes in local programming.

The Dynamics of Local Change

Local administratdrs learned from the YEDPA experience and

incorporated the experience into changes that can be roughly catalogued into

three categories: changes in procedures and operations, institutional

relationships, and policies.

Changes in Procedures and Operations

The easiest changes have been procedural. After reviewing first

year experience, prime sponsors are changing some of their operations.

Eligibility determination, where it has been'done by the Employment Service,

has gone smoothly. But intake operations have been reorganized or relocated

in some cases. One of the most radical changes is in Atlanta where YEDPAeligible youth were being referred for services without regard to individual

needs or overall employability development strategies. The cost was high

turnover for both YCCIP'end YETP. The intake system is being, overhauled and

a needs assessment phase is being built in to screen youth, then provide

career exploration services, Orientation and counseling. Once clients have

gone through the core activity, they are referred to other YETP components,

YCCIP, or Title IIB-C programs. _Remedial education and skill components have

been added for youth entering in 1979 because so many of the 1978 enrollees --

including high school graduates -- were found to have low achievement levels

and needed basic education to increase their employability. Rockford is

trying a variation on that approach, stratifying youth by ap and enrolling

different age groups in different service modules. Programs there, will

provide assessment, services, remediation as needed and graduated exposure

to,work. Planners in Albuquerque-Bernalillo are instituting a comprehensive

assessment System for all CETA clients. Because of the local announcement --

and bid review procedures for YCCIP, and the relatively small allocation for

the program,,many sponsors see it as Axing more trouble than it is worth.

In the turmoil of planning for 1979, YCCIP occasionally was relegated to

the back-burner.

f". - 32

42
ix - 13 -

Changes in the Institutional Roles

There were more difficult shifts in institutional responsibilities

for aspects of the youth programs. They are important because they imply

that certain turf lines and bureaucratic roles are not fixed, and are subject

to change through YEDPA. In Alamance, the prime sponsor increased'the

1979 LEA share of its YETP allocation more than three times over the 1978

level. The increase is a consequence of good CETA-LEA relations and the

decision to-add two student subpopulations as target groups: high school

students enrolled in vocational education.and high school students who are

unemployed. The presumplion is that the schools are in the best position to

identify the students and mesh YETP services and work experience with the

curriculum. In Lane County, there was a.shift of responsibilities to rationalize

overall program delivery. Because of the difficulties that LEAs there had with

the enrollment process and eligibility criteria, enrollment and certification,

are being moved to.thd prime sponsor. The LEAs, however, are increasing the

emphasis on the services that they are better adapted to provide, such as job

search seminars, career information, and community college classess. While

the LEA percentage share is not being increased in 1979, the funding is,

thanks to the carry-in. Further-reaching changes, while deemed possible in

Lane County because of good CETA-LEA relations, are not occurring because of

the short planning period.

Clark Cdunty, another sponsor with good LEA relations, has shifted

to the LEA responsibility for certifying-each work experience job site as

being career-related. Last year the prime sponsor had that responsibility.

The decision to shift the responsibility also probably provided more . incentive for the schools to agree to award academic credit for program

experience in 1979. In Cobb County, the local vocational-technical school

is acting in a referral role in 1979 to assure a flow of clients to YETP.

One of the local boards of education still has not signed an agreement and the

local high school will not refer students until the last quarter of the

senior year.

In an institutional shift in private sector relations, Cobb County

decided that it could drop the services of a private corporation that had been

instrumental in establishing a sponsor training program with a major corporate

employer in the area. The private intermediary almost certainly acted as an

indispensable catalyst for the first, yearoperations; but in the second year

after chain-of-command problems developed, the prime sponsor decided it

could contract directly for the services.

Although these kinds of institutional shifts were important, the

absence in other instances of institutional change from 1978 to 1979 was not

necessarily a bad sign. In the Lansing Consortium, where there is little

change in the level Of funding or the kinds of programs run by the LEAs,

the Tack of change is a sign of stability.more than inertia. The consortium

has a history of cooperation 'with schools end both parties have reached an

equilibrium. Routines have been established, and bugs eliminated; the

LEA share of YETP also stands at nearly 80 percent. Detroit is fine-tuning

43
34

part of its operations, taking away from schools outreach and recruitment

responsibilities for out-of-school youth, since the schools are not well

adapted to reaching that population. Other than that, np major changes are

planned. Kitsap County concluded its first 1978 school program with a

meeting between district school counselors and CETA staff. Except for a

funding. switch that will pay for certain in-school jobs from'YETP money

ins ad of YCCIP money to permit more flexibility, little of substance is

cha ing. There are no changes in the division of labor or program content.

Here, too, some administrative tinkering is being tried, however, with the

prime sponsor picking up some of the administrative expenses of the LEA program

and providing the school coordinator with a PSE worker for clerical support.

In some other prime "sponsorships, where institutional changes with

LEAs have been minimal, it has not been out.of satisfaction with present

arrangements as much as out of external constraints. In DeKalb County:

changes in LEA roles and activities are stymied by the funding uncertainties

and planning delays: `Oregon's proposition six putting a lid on local tax

rates contributed to the air of uncertainty over CETA budgets by putting the

LEA budgets in doubt. One school district concerned about budget uncertainties

dropped a successful career exploration program that had been launched as part

of the 1978 YETP activities. In Greene County there has been no change in the

role of LEAs because the education community has little trust in the CETA

system and is auspicious of federal funds. But Clark County administrators,

finding that the.county schools were unable to reach youth most in need of

its YCCIP activities, shifted responsibility for. YCCIP to a central city CBO

and the county children's home.

Changes inPolicy

. * Many of the first year YCCLP and YETP plans emulated the language of

the DOL Youth Planning Charter and the legislation without much sense for the

full implications of,,what they were saying. Furthermore, with limited planning

time in the first year, prime sponsors also had little choice of service

deliverers, which io turn, restricted the client population that would

realistically be served. As one planner in Oregon said,'"Our service mix is

,based largely on the realities of local service_delivery capability rather.

/than on the'mix of need." (Bonnie Snedeker, Page 1-28).

In the second planning'cycle, with the benefit of experience and

more planning time, sponsors lowered the level of rhetoric and changed some

policies to improve response to needs of target Ovulations rather than the

institutions. Cook County is improving implementation of services to drop-outs

by having the LEAs offer programs for both those who agree to return to school

as well as those who are interested in a GED, but would prefer not reenrolling

in traditional classes. The County is taking further steps to bring jobs to

the out-of-school youth by listing then) with the local employment service and

assuring that the youths are referred to the CETA intake office. In Northeast

Georgia, part of the balance-of-state prime sponsorship, planners have backed

away from returning drop-outs to school and are concentrating instead-on

44
35

providing them with opportUnities to earn a 5ED or attend adult basic

education classes. Kalamazoo County is providing them with more occupational

information. Kitsap County has decided not to target its entire YCCIP program

to in-school youth, because it can serve that population better with the

flexibility of YETP. Grand Rapids, for example, has kept its emphasis on

negotiating agreements for academic credit; the ambitious goal of matching

job assignments to client interestsikwas relegated to the back-burner. In its report on 178 YETP activities, the sponsors concluded that "admirable

as t'EDPA's goal of matching jobs with career aspirations is, legal, regulatory,

and traditional limits far overshadow the goal in practical terms."

(Peter Kobrak, Page C-22).

Apparently, some sponsors felt that first year YETP activities were

going too far afield of employment and t )'aining objectives. The vague concept

of career exploration is being sharpened so that programs have more specific

work related services. Sonoma County is incorporating a very specific list

of services and objectives in its LEA agreements. Lane County is shifting

"away from a predominately social service intensive model toward a stronger

employment and training oriented approach," -(Bonnie Snedeker, Page 1-26).

As part of the new emphasis, LEA in-school programs will be stressing

employability development planning. In making the shift, Lane County is

relying heavily on non-CETA agencies'to provide social services that the

YEDPA clients need. In Albuquerque-Bernalillo, skill-training slots are being

increased.

What is not clear.after the second round of YEDPA planning is whether

the largest changes to be induced by YEDPA have already occurred. The

number of sponsorships that seem locked in by'inertia, political or financial

constraints seems small. Most have undertaken changes in policies and operations

for the second year or are deliberately keeping options open by deferring 4 major changes until planners have a larger base of experidnce. In those cam,

contracts are being extended with little change. But the presumption among

local youth planners seems to be for further changes.

°N,45

4tv
THE LOCAL PERSPECTIVE

The, principal focus of the case studies in the third interim report

has been on variables important to the Department of Labor as It has tried

to implement YCCIP and YETP, but not necessarily important to prime sponsors.

In the course of implementation of YEDPA, local debates have covered some of

the same ground as those at the national level: the pace of implementation,

quality of jobs) funding uncertainties, knowledge development, and the role of

schools. But a different set of implementation issues,not found in national

discutsions, has.also been debated: the dilemma of local accountability

wit out adequatelocal authority; accomodating competing mandates that are

pro lgated from different national offices with little concern for.how they

int act locally; the effects of adverse CETA publicity.

Local sponsors have had persistent problems in two areas: achieving

stable staffing for local programs and achieving a cooperative'relationship

with the regional offices. The national Office of Youth Programs has not

committed real energy to studying either of these areas. Although they have

impacts on the operation and effectiveness of the youth programs, they are

not germane to YEDPA alone and are not really "manipulable variables" -- factors

over which national youth administrators have much immediate control. But they

are intrinsic to, the federal style of administering decentralized/decategorized

programs= and, in .4the long run, can be affected by shifts in federal policy.

For that reason they are worth mentioning.

Prime Sponsor Staff Stability

After overturning de results of the RFP process, the Columbus CETA

.director decided in th4 spring of 1978 to administer YETP in-house. But the

sponsor's Youth Employment Service Center, lacking necessary staff, materials

and facilities, did not .open until June 19th and limped through the summer.

Even by late 1.978, YETP programs were not fully implemented. Aside frot a

leadership void caused in part by the CETA director trying to plefte two

masters -- local elected officials and the U.S. Department of Labor -- the

sponsorship is unable to change staff qU tkly in response to shifting program

emphases and new legislation. CETA sta in Columbus are covered by civil

service persodnel management regulatio s. Hiring is a cumbersome and timeconsuming process. It is easier to r assign staff from one program area to

a other. But, this means that althoug PSE build-ups and YEDPA implementation

mandates, for example, do not present competing priorities at the national

leveV, they do locally: sttff for one priority area must be taken from

another.

One case study author who kept count found that in the first year

of YEDPA operations, three of the five California sponsors being studied

changed CETA directors.. One of the sponsors also lost its,youth director and

twokey youth staff. In three out of four spqnsors studied in Georgia, morale

was so low that staff were7looking actively for other jobs.

36 -

4
37

An Eastern Middlesex -YETP project collapsed when the sponsor's youth

director and project director resigned, and the project instructors were fired.

After some initial difficulties, a Boston YCCIP landscaping project got off

the ground and flourished. Youths e receiving classroom training to complement

well-superyised work activitieos. Sta and enrollees alike were serious about

their work. But,, by the beginning of summer, the project was disintegrating.

Staff twere never able to get adequate quipment, and without that were unable

to develpp good worksites. Enrollees and project personnel alike became

discouraged. By June,-both supervisors had resigned and were replaced by

interim supervisors who were completely untrained. In July, the project

director resigned. A director and two new supervisors were hired.

In the Connecti cut Balance-of-State youth operations, four persons

have been working together fairly 'effectively. But there are no formal career

ladders in' the bureaucratic structure and no one knows what the advancement

oppOrtunities are. The Hartford prime sponsorship, long a political football,

has been hit hard by turnover. As of November 1, 1978, only twelve percent of

the CETA staff have been without the organization for two or more years. The

youth programs have been especially had hit by resignations or reassignments

within the agency. As .a consequence of the turmoil, there is no institutional

memory and the effects of staff training have been almost totally washed out.

Portland, touted as one of the better sponsors in the country,, has

its-Ahare of problems. A CETA staff reorganization has hurt morale, among

the youth staff especially. The youth office has lost its status as a line

agency on the same level as adult and senior citizen?divisions. Central staff

supportive of the youth initiatives have quit and the supporters of adult

services have emerged as the ones with power -in the new organization, scheme.

Both the central youth office and the youth field netowrk continue to be

understaffed. With a strong emphasis on linking CETA to local economic

develOpment initiatives, it is becoming appar4ent that possibly the only way

to proOde services adapted to youth will be to rely more on local schools.

Symptoms of staff instability do not necessary spell disaster. Even

the Eastern Middlesex landscaping project experiencing complete staff turnover

can claim some measure of success. Both the original and the replacement

staff have been dedicated, maintaining contact with enrollees and counseling

them on-an informal basis. In early September, most of thp enrollees --

.,all out-of-school youth -- indicated that they were planning- to return to

School. But a stable staff does improve the chances .for success of any

programs. The more stable sponsorships and projects usually al-so have better

morale, lower turnover among clients, and it might be presumed, a better

chance for being effective.

Horror stories about staff instability are not represeritative of

local CETA or YEDPA operators in general. But they occur frequently enough to

merit attention. It is hard to determine the direction in which causality

runs when local operationt are in a state of turmoil and prime sponsor staff

are constantly changing. But the two go hand-in-hand and common sense makes

certain aspects of the national style of CETA administration a likely villain.

Where it is not the villain directly, it is indirectly by perpetuating policies

that hinder local survival adaptations.

4?
38

The federal /administration of CETA appears-to have material impact

on sponsor operations in two (interrelated) ways that can affect local staff

stability: first by leaving the sponsors politically vulnerable and second,

to a lesser extent, by leaving them too little time to establish a local agenda.

CETA sponsor directors fa-ce a challenging balancing act when they 1

try to serve NO masters. The federal presence in CETA is unmistakable., and

the law,, regulations, and national priorities frequently are not compatible

with local laws and administration practices or policy preferences. The

CETA rhetoric of local authority and discretion frequently is hard to reconcile

with the reality of federally-mandated review procedures that fail to acknowledge

and.allow inadequate time for local governments' own administrative review

procedures. The rhetoric is hard to reconcile with regional office hard-line

directives that are at odds with national offic% policy and common sense

interpretation,of the law and regulations, and further erode local discretion.

Although thb rhetoric gets through to mayors and county councils, the.

complexitities of administration do not. Local CETA administrators are left

with the difficult job of explaining the inconsistencies.

The political durability of local sponsor staff is also undermined

by the unique status they are sometimes accorded in local government. CETA

offices, usually being entirely federally supported components of local 25

government, are treated differently from other components of local government.

They are nota line item on local budgets, except where non-CETA responsibilities

are added, and CETA staff sometimes are not given the civil service protection

that employees of other local government offices have. The lack of civil

service protection and the financial insecurity caused by funding uncertaintidt

reduce the appeal of CETA staff jobs. Furthermore, the sudden:shifts in

emphasis in Washinaton and the addition of categorical programs force constant

staff reassignments and structural reorganizations. The climate of rinancial

and organizational uncertainthotakes a toll in staff turpover (to say nothing

of program effectiveness). These factors, taken together with the relative

newness of CETA, give CETA offices a sense of transience and a lack of perteived

bureaucratic,staying power.

Where CETA directors do not have he political muscle that can

compensate for weak structure, they may try to avoid, controversy or conflict

with other local officials by maintaining a low profile and following a policy

of isolated and undramatic programming. But when a choice is forced, CETA \

directors usually opt for legal accountability to the U.S. Department of Labor

instead of political accountability,to local elected officials. They can

then find themselves forced to resign for being unresponsive to local decisionmakers.

,CETA staff stability suffers alSo because of the frustrations and .(--

uncertainties that attend the implementation 0 federal policies when there/ii

too little-time for them to map mkt a local emploYment and training agenda,

and)plan programs adapted to it. YEDPA was. implemented as an accelerated pace.

in which a 'great deal of the time between the first planning activity. and ( program implementation was taken up with procedural reviews of hastily

developed plans based, in part, on the recommendations of youth councils that

48

(
4 . 39 .

had met only once or twice and were never adequately briefed about the dimensions

of youth employment problems or the relative effectiveness Of past-strategies

for dealing with those problems. After local revibw and approval, the plans

were hastily implemented with too little time to the administrative demands:

hiring qualified staff, and determining what facilities and, equipment were

needed for programs and then obtaining them. The rush left little time for

considering carefully strategic and tactical decisions, building local support,

and forming coalitions. It meant instead, a game of catch-up in which sponsors

had to strike out on their own, rush enrollments, and try operating programs

without the benefit of a break=in period.

The lack of planning and program. development time certainly was a

contributing factor in the inability of the Columbus YETP to get started.

It hurt staff morale and enrollees were quick to catch on and seek out other

opportunities. The YCCIP landscaping project in Eastern Middlesex might have

fared better had it started with the equipment and the worksites that it

needed. Without the front-end time needed for proper project developmemt,

staff there had no better luck finding their work "meaningful" than did the

enrollees.

The uncertainties-hurt linkages with other institutions. Even where

sponsor staff can adjust to the atbreviated planning cycles, administrators

Gannot, or can with only the greatest difficulty. The extra effort to plan

and implement LEA agreements quickly did not ease the way for better CETA-LEA

relations. It only introduced another source of tension. The delays in a

go-ahead signal for a second year of YEDPA held up youth programs until well

into the new school year. In a few cases, they were able to start on time

when the LEAs and other local agencies went out on a limb either advancing

funds directly for the second year programs or assuring some liability for

them. In any.event," the uncertainties and lack of _planning militated in favor

_off policy of.incrementalism requiring a minimum of new Irk.

The youth programs have not been the only source of frustration for

local sponsors, however. They have beed merely one more in a series of

frustrations associated with CETA. The delay in reauthorization of CETA.and

funding delays and uncertainties for all CETA programs typify the larger

prOblems facing local' sponsors. The ad hoc style of national manpower policy

formulation by the Congress and the crisis style of management by they

U.S. Department of Labor are the factors most frequently cited by the sponsors

as the underlyin9 cause of their planning difficulties.

The Role of the Regional Offices

The point of contact between prime sponsors and the U.S. Department

o Labor is the office of the regional administrator. It is responsible for

communicating to the prime sponsor notice about laws and regulations, and

for passing on policy and administrative direltives. It reviews and approves

sponsor plans and answers inquiries about interpretation of laws and regulations.

The regional office also acts as a conduit for technical assistance. In the

formal administrative scheme, it is the gatekeeper for information and authority

that sponsors need for their operations: ,

49
A - 41'0 -

There is a predictable tension between 4ponlprs and regions ff3ces.

springs from the authority that the regional offihas.over local p dgrams.

Whether the relationship becomes contentious seems to depend mostly on hether

regional office authority is exercised in a spirit of cooperation.--Unfortunately,

during implementation of the youth programs, non-cooperation has been a

recurring, though not pervasive, theme..

In-the view of some,of the saontors being evaluated, their contact

with the regional offices with regards to the youth:programs has been marked

by too little attention to the spirit of YEDPA, the'substance,of program

designs, or the effectiveness of program strategies. Instead, there has' been

frequently a fixation with mechanical compliance activity, pushing prime

sponsor spending, and assuring that sponsors do not make waves. As one reaton

for rejeqting a sponsor plan, a regional office objected to the use of time

allocat4ons expressed in fractions of percents. In another region, the office

put pressure on a sponsor that had decided not to apply.for.YCCIP money. Arj" Yet the offices were oblivious to larger policy questions. For exampld,

although the Columbus sponsor was not in violation of any laws and did indeed

submit a plan on time, the total ineffectiveness of its implementation efforts

escaped censure by the regional office:

Another'problem'some sponsors identified was tie lack of timely - information from-regional offices, and'the occasional distortions of national

'officepoliCy. Early in the course akimplementation, sponsors had difficulty

obiliiiing answers to inquiries'about the interpretation of YEDPA and the . YEDPA regulations.. Mese problemS were compounded when regional office

' information wag"Ola*ly wrong. One sponsor received the wrong estimate for

Its 1978 YETP all*Aioris. Some sponsors were directed to keep SPEDY separate

from YETP and Y.C.IP activities. Others discovered the were not receiving

techniearassistahce material frOth the national office and found the regional

office training to be addressesrtp narrow procedural concerns, paying little

attention to ;strategic policy-Asst.*, - , It is not hard to fiiid reasons-Jor he brea,kdown_in the regional

role of transmitting information and Orovidf technical assistance. In the

rush to implement the youth programs, id ons sometimes had no faster

access than prime sponsors to interpret ions p regulations or, technical

assistance material. Sponsors, under, A gun to et plans out in a hurry,

found it faster.and'more reliable to g. around r gion-af offices and contact

the national office directly. Cffici e national office; after

encountering" resistance in the regio!. network to fast implementation,

frequently cooperated in the end r . Regional personnel, often lacking

experience, were also burdened with respdiabillties for increasing public

service employment enrollments. The ext a responsibilities and the complexity

of the new youth legislation made it di, icult for them to cope with all the

inquiries ftom local sponsors. It is not unusual for,5them to know far less

about national policy on particular prog ms tRan local administrators. Unable

to provide much useful information to prim onsors, regional personnel seem

to have found in many cases that the only way they can exert influence is ,

, administratively, though approval power over sponsor plans and program

activity. Yet even there, "regional office opinions are not final authority,
41

but are subject to reversal by the national office. Under these conditions,

contact between sponsors and regional office officials exacerbates the

natural tension between them.

Thdreasons for the poor relations that frequently exist between

regional offices and prime sponsors are not hard to fathom, and the consequences

are predictable. The solution to the problems that the tensions.create are

not so obvioUs. At a minimum they depend upon the Department of Labor

determining, as a matter of explicit Oblicy, what the appropriate role of

the regional network is, and then standing by the policy.

. #

3' 9

a

Tlird Interim Report

YEDPA'- Connecticut
a

1.. Experience Thus Far-Quantitative

\\

1A. Enrollments, Terminations, Expenditures_

Data on enrollments and expenditures by each of the prime is

shown on the following tables. Before focusing on the specifics of these

for each of the areas, it is worth noting the very disparate sizes of the

three prime sponsors being evaluated. While the Hartford consortium is more

than 3 times the, size of the City of Waterbury's program, the .former is only

about one-third the size of the BOS (balance of state). These size differ-.

ences make the administration of these programs very different kinds of

operations for each of the prime sponsors. Accordingly, each of the prime

sponsors experiences very different types of management problems.

For the BOS actual expenditures for,both YETP and YCCIP were less than

two - thirds of the, planned levels, yet actual enrollments were .87 and 1.26

of the planned levels foOETP and YCCIP respectively. Obviously, BOS had

less trouble finding enrdllees for its programs than it did in spending what

ithad originally planned for either program. This experience, generally,

was repeated in the other jurisdidtions:

In Waterbury the level of expenditures was between 80-90,percent of \ that planned. Under YETP Waterbury s enrollments were about 95 percent of

'the,planped levels and for the small YCCIP program, actual enrollments

\exceeded the planned level (25 vs. 23).

7 '54

L
r

55

with 7. distributions

in parentheses

Prime

Sponsor

0

0

I. 44 to 0 0 44

41 '4 U E-1

, 0

, <I1 44u atu

N t a. 0 43

w

coj. 14. 0 .... 0 I 44 14

1, ol w.4,

8 P.; > L1.3 1

1

t.4 C

o 4.1

0; 0 ' t0 0 0 Z .0

14 0 0 o 0 o4 m o. ww 4,0 U

ts' ; .f, 0 f, 0 4 0 0 0

i

. 0 a0 0 0

14 44

ro .9

4 2

U E-1

u

o., ..... 0 701 4 0 0

41 0

ra 44 $4 14 0 I. 4.1 o o)

a w ts .4 is w

8 mm 8 It t4 &' 0 3 z > 43 0 S

44

o .o 0 44 0 0 0 44

14 c.I. ts 0

-2 8 0 0

$4

eu .* f,0

. '

YCCIP

WATERBURY

25

! (100) , 25

. (100), '.

1

, $ 51,000

_ _. $ 231,000

i (25) ,(31) :(44)

114

(67)

25

(15) 31

(18) 170

YETP

.°. YCCIP

HARTFORD - YETP

85

(100) 85

1 100%;

1

! 100%.

249,000,

749,000

. .

I 558

(IV) , 558

YCCIP

BUS

318

(100)

1 , 318 (100) 3 458,000

(3) (62)

i (17) (18)

$1,945,000 36

(2) 0 : 777

1 (53) .

1

.1 328 335

(22) (23) 1476

_ -YETP

. YCCIP_ .

.

.

.

. ._ YETP

. YCCIP

,

.

.

, V

.

,

. 5-B

t.1

1 ° e

/

i -

, .

' ' :

.

1

; YETP

.

I

!
umbers with

7. distributicin parentheses

rime

ponsor

CUM

TOTAL

FY 78

(as of

' I ; 1

..-1;

EV.

...1

--.11 o

4:1 g

0

JJ

.=

g

Z

to

-c; co 44t0

0W

0 in

.ii o 0 o O. m V

0 0 0

LI 34 1.1

II . . . X 'X x

.o0

o g6 o. 14

ii, 4'

oo owo

LI 2

o

t;

.e4

'.(14

?)...

2

..4

.

-44

81A

.si coa. ct. 44

al 44 u 0

704 OD inl '

E f, xcm

/

"YCCIP 14 11 13 20 5 25 25 20 5 1 13 1

WATERBURY

25 56) (44) (52) (80) (20) 100) (80) (20) (4 - 52 - 4) - YETP 88 82 115 73 97 170 51 3 116 109 - 61 80 3 17 170 (52) (48) (68) (43) (57) 100) (30- 2 -68) (64) (36) (47 - 2 - 10)

YCCIP 85 68 17 69 33 52 85 76 7 2 8$ 24

IJARKFORn

(80) (20) (81) (40) (60) 100) 89) (8) (3) (100) (28)

.... YETP 558 262 296 558 304 254 496 558 508 # 9 195 1

(47) (53) (100) (54) (46) (90) (100) (91) ) (2) (35) (0) .

. . YCCIP 226 92 193 241 77 172 74 29 115 242 5 71 5 47 15 5 318 (71) (29) (61 (76) (24) (55) 55) (9)(36) (76) (2) (22) (2) (15) (5) (2)

BOS

. YgTP 670 806 791 1136 340 1222 .46 201 629 812 31 633 22 350 99 42 1476 (45) (55) (54 (77) (23 (83) 44)(13)(43) (55) (2) (43) (2) (24) (7) (3)

YCCIP

, YETP

, . YCCIP

. YETP

. it..)

, 53

5'7
*

4

In Hartford as with the other two prime sponsors enrollments represented a higher ratio of actual to planned than did expenditures. 'Under

YCCIP only 85 percent of authorized funds were spent while actual enrollments were.125 percent of planned levels. For the YETP programs actual enrollments were 120 percent'Of planned levels while actual expenditures were

bela4 60 percent of the planned figures.

I. In each of the cases for prime. sponsors (and for most of the program

operators) they experienced turnover rates that were higher than anticipated.

With high rates of termination and with a readily available pool of youth to

move into vacant slots, this finding that actual enrollments outpaced expenditures, relative to planned levels,is hardly surprising.

Turning specifically now to the experience of BOS, there is not much

difference in the ratio of actual-to-planned enrollients for males (.89) and

females (.84) under YETP. In YCCIP, however; there appears to have been some

unanticipated female participation. This is not explained by a more rapid

turnover of of females in YCCIP, for the ratio of term4inations -to- enrollments for

YCCIP males and females are .87 and .68, respectively.

The ratio of actual-to-planned enrollments is higher for whites than for

nonwhAXes in both programs in BOS. The disparity is particularly large for

YCCIP, where several operators have indicated some difficulty in attracting

minorities., This must be at least partially attributable to the nonurban

settings of some of the YCCIP projects.

5,9
In'YETP-BOS, where income restrictions prevail, the actual proportion

of total participants who are economically disadvantaged is .83, virtually

the same as the, planned proportion, .84. In YCCIP -'BOS, however, where there

are no specific income restrictions, the actual proportion of disadvantaged,

.54, is lower than planned, .65. It may be thatithe previously mentioned.

difficulties with turnover and attracting minorities in YCCIP resulted in

somewhat "legs disadvantaged" youth being drawn into the program. Still,

there seems to be little evidence hat YCCIP itograms hav departed from

their primary objective of pervin " tiii3k4r- youth.

With regard to other significant segments in BOS both programs seem to

have had moderate to good success (in relation to plans) in serving previous

offenders. Although planned .figures for AFDC/PA recipients were not avail-

&La, actual-figures show that significant proportions of total participants

fall into this category (.24 for YETP and .15 for YCCIP). Actual services

provided to handicapped persons and veterans fall signifiCantly short of plans

in both programs. Veterans have been dropped as a target group for,FY 79.

A closer inspection of data pertaining to, terminations and entry into.

employment provides a clearer picture of this problem in BOS. Note that the

actual-to-planned ratios for YCCIP participants entering employment (.76) and

for other positive terminations (.55) are relatively low, while the actual-toplanned ratio for nonpositive terminations (2.84) is quite large. This pattern

60,
- 6

is not so apparent in YETP, where the comparable figures a .56, .97,-,and

..84, respectively. YETP, not surprisingly, m tolhave high turnover

rates among 14-15 year-olds. In BOS YETP exhibits a lower ratio of terminations-to-enrollments, s slightly higher ratio of employment entry-td-terminadons, and a much lower ratio of nonpositive terminations-to-total terminations

than does YCCIP.

As noted supra actual enrollments exceeded planned levels b;ahout \ 20-25

,percent in Hartford. Under YETP, overenrollments occurred for minorities

(172%), economically disadvantaged (118%), andliispanics (275%). Only the

handicapped were,undereerolled (55%). Under YCCIP, overenrollments were also

the greatest for Hispanics (172%), but were high for out-of-school youths

(122%), minorities (120%), 1 economically disadvantaged (175%), and school dropouts (112%).

ActUal terminations under XETP in Hartford were 143% of planned terminations, and under YCCIP were 165% of planned terminations for the year. Under

YETP about one-third of White youths were terminated (25% of those terminations

subsequently entered the labor force) and abodt one-fourth of Black youths were

terminated (with about 8%of those terminations subsequently entering the

labor force). The plan called for about 45% of those terminated to enter the

labor force. Under YCCIP a little more than two- thirds `of White youths and

Cl
- 7 -

just two-thirds of the Black youths were terminated. Three of the 20 White

youths terminated entered employment; none of the 36 Black youths found

employment by the end of the fiscal year. The plan called for a little,less

than 25% of those terminated to enter the labor force.

In summary both'progr'ams in Hartford had higher termination rates and

lower subsequent employment rates than were planned:

In Waterbury all but one of the programs were very small and may have

accounted for the relative ability of that prime sponsor to meet many of

its plans. In YWIP the ratios of actual to planned enrollments of blacks,

females nd Spanish youth were all Close to unity. "Non positive terminations"

were parti ularly high in the 2 programs for out-of-school youth. Out of

the 170 youth enrolled in Waterbury's YETP only 2 entered employment after

the'programs, compared to 15 planned.

In summary, the prime sponsors were working in areas Where they had

relatively limited experience. Moreover, the serious problems in the planning

process described in our first 2 interim reports Meant that there was every --- . reason to expeOt major disparities between planned and actual performance.

The'delayed start of the programs further complicated matters for the prime

sponsors. To the extent that their experience in the firit year is reflected

planning for the second, they can each anticipate especially high rates of

to over froM the out-of-school youth and relatively limited success there

when assessed againa5:-the usual criteria of stable employment, high earnings

and/or return to school.

ti 62
- 8 - .

IB. Quality of the Data

The basic source of most data on YEDPA is the program operator. For that

ti reason die quality of the data can vary considerably, not only across prime

sponsors but by projects as well. In general,Yhe data gathering is seen as a

necessary evil imposed by,someone up-the-line. As sach,the effort to gather

'them seems to be done grudgingly at all levels.

For Waterbury and BOS the data are probably reasonably accurate. In Waterbury both a project monitor and a management information specialist seek

to verify monthly the data received. The programs are small enough that CETA

staff often seem to know the names of youth in the program and can identify

data on a personal bisis, e.g. John Smith graduated and found employment with

terbury Tool Co. A recent change in CETA staff has brought in a new monitor

who appears to bd quite serious about maintaining good data. Yet, in the data

supplied to us (and previously to Boston) some inconsistencies were found and

were subsequently changed.

The BOS is ObviouSly well removed from the various projects it supports.

Yet, project operators are subject to having their records spot checked during

perio dic visits by th4bionitor. As such, we believe these data are aldo quite

good. And if openness is an indicator of.the confidence that prime sponsors

have in their data both Waterbury ,and BOS have always been absolutely prompt

and complete in providing any data we're4uestedllf4them.

, Needless to say the situation in Hartford has been different. As reported

previousS the data system has been a problem here from the outset. Moll

significantly, the substantial changes and turnover in personnel leave one with

.1

63
the view that the store is deft untended. The absence of close monitoring

means that the project operators have limited direction or guidance in dealing

with requests for data. However, the extraordinarily tense situation int

Hartford is such that operators of programs could be expected to maintain good

records and to provide scrupulously documented data. Given the variety of

auditors and law enforcement agencies that are examining CMP and some of their

contractors at the present time one can have considerable confidence in the

recent data (at least), coming from Hartford.

Thus far we have referred simply to programdata, those that arise out of

the projects direttly. A second issue of quality pertains to planning data,

a those that are used by the prime sponsors to plan and to justify programs to

the Regional Office. These can be divided into two types, internally and

externally generated. xamples of the former are the targets that must be provided when the Regional 0 fice prepares to provide funds for programs. These

It targets are frequently only wild guesses, particularly when a program (such

as YEDPA in 1977-78) is a new one and the'prime sponsors have little or no

experience or benchmark from which to operate.

The externally generated data refer to those such as universe of need,

unemployment, rates, school dropouts, etc. Several issues need to be noted

..here. First, since the prime sponsorsipee requests fOr these data as essential

elements in their proposals for funds, but of little or no programmatic value

they have little incentive not to pass along' someone else's data to DOL,

regardless of its quality. Thus,, for example, data from the 1970 Decennial

4

a

e r
O

- 10 -

Census are being supplied because no other are available, despite their

being very stale. Data supplied by state agencies are also frequently cited

despite problems of quality and timeliness. Another problem occurs for BOS

since many governmental data are limited as to availability to SMSA's or

urban areas.

It needs to be reiterated that we know of no attempts to deliberately

mislead the Regional/ Office Instead, data requests from there are routinely

honored with the best available data for the purpose of satisfying the source

of funds. Some of these data, however, do not warrant serious or nonsuper-

. ficial attention. Yet the prime sponsors, often sensing that Boston knows

that these data only faintly resemble accurate statistics, play the game.

1C. Other Data IssuesOne indicator we believed of the degree to which prime sponsors took

seriously. the issue of knowledge development is the extant-- uuatitatively

and qualitatively--of dIxs. collection beyond that mandated OL. Clearly,

some of these required data will be of interest to the prime sponsors but

we sought to find how much additional data, either for evaluation ormanagement information,are being collected. The picture was somewhat mixed.

The Hartford agency appears to collect nothing beyond that which is

required by DOL. That effort appears to be burde'some enough for CMP and is

not surprising. Waterbury attempted to develop some "soft" data on participant conduct, work attitudes and habits; and academic performance. Some

a

65
problems were encountered, particularly as the prime sphsor received inade-

/

quate cooperation from the schools. At first, some of this was seen in the

schools as a needless burden for them. Moreover, internal CETA staff

problems --now apparently ended-undermined the effort. As such,a new effort

will be undertaken this year to gather such kinds of data. FuTer, the.

development of the questionnaires is a task that has been given to the Youth

Council._

In BOS it seems clear that although the'prime sponsor and the program

operators generally are not inclined to Collect non - mandated information'

they would be willing to collect other data which they perceive to be more

relevant to the operation of their programs. For example, one new program

operator has expressed this clearly:

"Acknowledging that there is a legitimate need for

financial and social accountability in providing

government services,as a new program operator I am,

concerned about forms upon forms which hae no clear relationship to the program we are running nor can this information be used by .a local operator

to improve-services rendered. Hopefully, as the

Department.of Laboi continues its yduth employment'

program, it will involve program operators in'the . development of forms which are meaningful to all parties, as well as helpful in planning of particular

programs." (Youth Adult Council, Westport).

Some of the program operators are carrying out evaluations of themselves,

however, In Madison, Ct., for exanple,Project Learn has retained the services

of an educational_ consulting firm to examine its program.

o 6 6
t

The whole issue of DOL data needs may have to be reevaluated. We detect

not simply the readily predictable strain between primesponsors and the

RReg1 Office that are generated by poorly understood demands for data. Indeed, , e also see elation's between program operators and the prime sponsors

strained as the latter pass such requests down to the former. Data colleption

is not a costless venture and with very,,limited resources (and very low costs

for administration), a very direct trade-off occurs involving less time given

to program management. Further, where the needs of DOL are not understood and

0

the effort is 2E2 forma, morale must necessarily be jeopardized. While, the

price of that may. not be readily estimated, that does not suggest to us that

At is negligible.

2. Experience Thus Far -

2A. Prime Sponsor's Adjustments

;,, `Each of the three connectieut prime sponsors encountered problems in

. 7 E. dealing-with the slow start-up of YEDPA. These'.difficulties involved both

visible and not visible issues. The latter have been described in our earlier

reports Under the heading of planning, project4rd prograidentification'and

the like., The more visible outcome of theinadequate planning and late startup is evident,by the level of actual expenditures relative to planned expenditures. In Hartford this ratio was 59 percent in YETP and 85 percent for YCCIP.

In k telbury total actual to total planned expenditures was 84 percent and in

BOS the ratios were 64 percent and 66 percent for YETP and YCCIP, respectively.

67 S
- 13 -

When the prime sponsors were told to limit spending to 73 percent of the

budgeted level, the prime sponsors sought to use attrition to proVide for

. this. Appatently, the stop-start spending messages from DOL are not new and

the prime sponsors react to these by asking program operators to respond

accordingly through changing their intake flaws. Attrition rates in the youth

programs at least are high enough to allow considerable flexibility in program

size--and hence costs. This is also easier to manage when there is an ever77

present queue to enter the program. Aside from adjusting the flow of youth,

4 a small number of projects were added midway in the_year to absorb thi lagged,

funding. Hartford, for example, used this opportunity to add a horticulture

project; under YCCIP.

The surplui funds in Hartford have been used to fund programs in October

and Nbvember until approval id-received for the 1949 allotment. If the Regional

Office should ultimately not approve the use of these funds, Hartford would have

to pay for this directly. This uncertainty', in the midst of the already

tain environment', serves to heighten tensions in that situation. , 2B. The Evolution of Problems

It is not possible to fully describe the horrendous events that have transpired in Hartford since the laSt interim report. Earlier, we had noted the

almost beleaguered position of CMP, the Hartford prime sponsor. Aside from

6 being caught between various highly placed political figures in Hartford, it was

ser held in very low repute by DOL:(Boston and WashingtOn), ararstrife existed_
1-14

lk between the City and the suburban towns of the consortium. Just prior to

YEDPA a new director was brought in to improve CETA's administration. While

this unenviable condition persisted the youth programs were somewhat removed

from the battle partly.because they were quite small and not linked to the

older, controversial programs. Even today, after the over-all program has

been thoroughly rocked the yo th progtams continue j to operate outside the

focus of hostile public attention. Conceivably, that situation may deteriorate at any time but for the present YEDPA is alive if not robust.

The turning point for CETA in Hartford occurred in the late spring when

a rapidly changing set of estimates of program deficits became public. This

was followed by charges of corruption on the part of some of CMP's contractors,

and a break -in at CETA'a office to tamper with files. In a community as small

and 46 staid as Hartford the matter took on monumental proportions and was,

front-page material for."weeks. Not surprisingly in the light of previous his:-

ai

tory, a conflict arose about. liability for a roughly $1.5 aillion deficit

between the City of Hartford and the other towns in the consortium. Till now,

a large number of questions persist about the source of the deficit but the

media attention to the crisis has been somewhat reduced. In the wake of the

developments; the Director of CMP was made to resign and shortly, thereafter,

the powerful City Manager of Hartford.also was forced out: A variety of law

enforcement bodies are currently working at CMP offices to unearth evidence of

program' corruption. A situation of trusteeship essentially prevails for CMP.

t
- 15 -

The major impact of these developments for the youth programs has been

the oVer-all upheaval for staff. The two individuals who had hands-on responsibility for YETP and YCCIP have been moved from their positions. There is,a

decided lack of continuity'and the situation is clearly a poor one. Not surprisingly then, other Haxtford.problemi noted in earlier reports

have not been solved. For example, we reported a number of difficulties involving the Hartford Area Manpower Planning Council (HAMPC) and the Youth

Planning Council in the planning process. These matters deteriorated over

the summer and early fall and questions were raised concerning the legitimacy

of HAMPC. Had the term of the HAMPC members expired? Within this past month

the entire group has been dissolved and has been wholly reconstituted. Appointments Mve largely emanated from Hartford City Hall. The Mayor, who had been

the Chairman, is no longer a,member of the Committee. The'Youth Planning

Council has also been reconstituted. Neither' group has yet been fully appointed.

Another problem cited previously was the development (ot lack of it) o, a new management informatiod system. The system is stir operational and tht

Title III reporting requirements are given as one of the causes. Till now

CEP has not had an experienced computer,programmer on its staff. Such a person

has now been recruited.

In earlier reports we noted also the difficulties in implementing the

suburban component of YETP. The plOgram operator (Capital Region Education

Council - (CREC) had found it difficult to reach out easily to students, working

0
- 16 -

through 24 separate school boards. The town officials in turn are discouraged

about all the paperwork involved with placing so few students in the program.

One town official who voiced this complaint had only 6 students from his

jurisdiction in YETP. These problems largely remain.

By contrast the much more compact and less populous Waterbury CETA

encountered relatively few problems operationally, aside from a single troublesome project with high turnover. That problem was never resolved but the

operation in question has been closed and not refunded.

Some common problems identified for each of the prime sponsors in our

earlier reports included the lack of effective participation on the Youth

Councils, slow or little pV5gress in arranging and granting academic credit,

and considerable confusion regarding the meaning and intent of "knowledge

development". Each of the Youth Councils is to be reconstituted or restructured

(see infra). Some progress is being made on the matter of academic credit.

Moreover, the State Board of Education has recently established a unit to determine statewide standards, for the granting of academic credit in work experience

programs. COnfusion over the meaning of "knowledge developnient" persists and

this is most easily observed by reading some of the program operators' annual

reports in regard to ,this issue.

. Some concerns by program operators in BOS about the wage ipcentives for

youth haveled to the adoption of a more flexible wage policy by the prime sponsor in'1979. Other problems have emerged which well% not so apparent in early

cr

71
-!

phases of the program. As the pool of potential jobsites has been depleted,

operators in BOS and elsewhere have become more vocal about the nonprofit

sector restriction. A revision of pol cy in this area, though, is obirious4

. beyond the control of the prime sponsor. Strained relations between the DOL'

,., regional office and the BOS, and CBO dissatisfaction with the Employment

Security Division's celtification and referral procedures, are also problems

which were not so evident before.

2C1. The Evolving Role of the Program Operators

The first year of operating YEDPA has been important in educating all

participants in it. The prime sponsors had very little knowledge of the

problems involved with running youth programs and many of the program opera

tors were also quite inexperienced. While many of the latter previously had

run manpower or human resource projects that might have included some youth

(at least some older ones) few had ever dealt with them exclusively. Other

operators of programs found the experience of being a CETA contractor a novel

one and needed time to learn the ways of the prime sponsor and DOL. Very few

found themselves in the position of the Hartford public school system which

simply operated its YETP project as it had an earlier program whose funding

had run out. Generally, most operators found their experience to be edifying

and many are confident tha this will allow them to do better in FY 1979 (where

programs are to be continued ,- In one sense--if they are correct--there is a

very signifiCant message here for DOL. By whatever criteria YETP and YCCIP

will be evaluated, ope rs believe that the outcomes will be significantly

--N)

improved in the coming y ar.

I

72
- 18 -

One of the lessons that seems to come through loudly is the difficulty of

working with these youth and the serious magnitude of their problems. Particularly for the out-of-school youth, very large doses of counse'ing and supervision are needed. A number of program operators, especially ones who had not

previously serviced youth, were surprised by the range and severity of problems

which many of their clients brought to the program.

"Although many of our goals were obtained, we were

surprised at the great amount of needs and services

the youngsters required to 12e properly prepared for

work and good work attitudes." (Human Resource

Development Agency, Naugatuck).

Operators have responded to this broad range of needs by initiating programs

aimed at helping entering clients "...to attain some of the basic life skills

needed for day-to-day existence." (Windham Area Community Action'Program,

Danielson). These activities include workshops on personal finances, first aid,

birth control, personal hygiene, and access to low-income health care services.

While many of these presentations and discussions were conducted in-house or

with the assistance of other nonprofit community agencies, there were some instances of private sector involvemit. For the clients A one program, for . example, the Southern New England Telephone Company administered a workshop on

the use of telephone equipment.

A number of operators have also indicated the need for more thorough

assessment of acquired skills, aptitudes, and attitudes at the time of entry.

Negative self-images and poor work attitudes seem to be prevalent problems and

have evoked a varietof responses ranging from individual psychological

a 73
- 19 -

counseling services (usually donated) to a 30-hour course entitled "Adventures

in Attitudes" (Work Experience Program, Meriden).'With regard to the latter

CI effort, the operator reports that "...the records show a great improvement in

work attendance, interest in acquiring new skills and development of positive

attitudes about employment, goals and life in general." If the DOL concentrates

too narrowly on the work experience needs of these youth the programs cannot

hope to succeed for many of the participants. These program operators appear

to be saying that if the services are geared exclusively to work, income or

return-to-school outcomes, and the programs are evaluated accordingly, DOL will

not be meeting the real needs for many youth and will likely tnderestimate the

e value of these p ojects. Instead, considerable attention through close personal

contact must be gi en to changing attitudes, perceptions, feelings of self worth

and the like. Perhaps this conviction was strongly held by some program opera-

. tors prior to YEDPA but we sense that others have acquired it--or had it

reinforced--during the past year. Again, this view emerges particularly where

the youth involved were those that were highly alienated and may have come from

backgrounds which included criminal behavior, learning handicaps, abusive

parents, etc. Many of these were concentrated,im the out-of-school programs.

,For one prime sponsor, Hartford, any learning by program operators over

the first year has been critical. Given ,the past dependence by CMP on "oral

history", and the reality of almost total personnel turnover in the youth area

recently, combined with the recent appointment of the third "Fed Rep" in 6

'74
-20-

(

months, continuity and experience must come from the program operators.

Additionally, as noted earlier little or no history can be provided by the

newly constituted planning councils there.

An important piece of eviden e that there was learning by program opera- . tors is the change in program plans for the year ahead. For example, an LEA

in Waterbury operated a program during 1977 -78 that involved little more thanpaying some students to "help out" after school. The second year program by

9 contrast, will involve similar youth in significant skill training in the com- munications arts, e.g., writing, printing, photography, office skills, etc.

These students will help to develop a community newspaper.

Some program operators developed a better awareness of how to deal with

public agencies. Thus, while a number reported problems working with the

Connecticut State Employment Security Division, a number also reported that

they now feel more equipped to deal with ESD, and the whole intake ptocess.

One program operator was described to us by CETA staff during thg year

as intransigent. (This conformed to the views expressed to us by participants

in the program.) This program operator, was discouraged from seeking a second

YETP contract and will not be involved in the 1979 program. In this case,

there was no learning, except perhaps by the prime sponsor.

2C2. Common Problems for Program Operators

A number of problems that face a number of program operators have become

evident. They are almost certainly not unique to Connecticut.

r

75
- 21 -

a. Certification and referral

Each of the three prime sponsors utilizes the State Employment Security

Division to certify applicant eligibility. ESD is also a source of client

eferrals. Amonlocal operators there appears to be some dissatisfaction

with this process.

"Difficulty with certification process through the

Employment Seivice presented problems due to information which was often incomplete and inaccurate.

In addition, there was a lack of response to recruitment efforts of the Program. Statistics from the

Labor Department indicated a large number of youth

who were registered with the Employment ServiCe and

eligible for the program. However, many of these

individuals were never referred by the Employment

Service to the program." (YouthCareer Development

Program, Cromwell).

Where ESD did make referrals, they were not always found to be the most needy.

"Some Employment Service referrals were considered

inappropriate due to.ilhe fact that they failed to

identify those with t the greatest needs, and priori-

. ties were therefore given to those who met the projected goals of this.program; however, all were

accommodated." (Spanish Learning Center, Danbury).

Other operators found ESD certification to be a hazardous process.

"Many of the applicants we referred never returned

to us because of the 'run around' encountered there.

If we could certify, the program would be more

successful." (Southbury Training School, Southbury).

f This call for direct certification is echoed by another operator.

"Difficulties in recruitment and certification process

cnuld be overcome by a more careful evaluation of

individuals, at the Employment Service or more preferably by allowing individual programs to handle the

process itself." (Youth Career Development Program,

Cromwell).,

76

J
- 22 -

b. 'Selection criteria

In addition to dis.satisfaction with the certification process, there is

some concern about the relevance,of the income restrictions, particularly in

YETP programs.

"CETA eligibility requirements based on family income

should be eliminated or raised substantially in order

that\ell youth who could benefit from the program be

served. Eligibility criteria for YCCIP which encourages

preference to economically disadvantaged but imposeth no

income requirements should be applied to YETP programs

) as well." (Youth Career Development Program, Cromwell).

One of the,LEAs engaged in providing career employment experiences and transition services notes that:

There are students whose family income is greater than

the 85% income level but who are in need of employability

skill development to a far greater degree than some students whose families meet the economic guidelines."

(Project LEARN, Madison).

Even in YCCIP programs, where there are no specific income limitations, the

required collection of family income information presents problems for the

operator.

ek

"A case in point. is the difficulty of securing required

family income information when students,are living in

single parent family environments which are often

strained, if not volatile. As you know, the mandated

request for this income information seems at times incongruous with an employment program which has no income

eligibility requirement. We understand that students who

come from disadvantaged family situations should be given

9 first opportunity' to participate in this program and

indeed,, they are and will continue to be. However, we

find that at times it is impossible to secure this information from precisely the students who need, to beTemployed

because of their home situation." (Youth,Adult Council,

Westport):

77
\- 23 -

An outside observer of the Westport YCCIP'program describes the problem in

even greater detail.

"Some of the problems Bill pointed out seem to be

almost inevitable, and perhaps exacerbated when a

small, individualized ptgram deals with the bureaucracy. He felt that DOL's forms, especially for intake, presented problems, and-took a disproportionate

amount of time--for him and for the higeschool

staff, especially 'since this program had at the outset identified its target group as 'at risk' students, rather than the economically disadvantaged.

It is close to impossible to obtain figures on family income from many of the young people's families,

'since they come from broken homes and/ox unstable

family settings. In some cases, repegted attempts

to contact a parent produce no result; in others,

the parent in a single-parent home cannot provide

data on the other parent's financial status, or, in

some cases, even his/her whereabouts. As an example

of still another kind of problem, there is the

father who holds a responsible job with a large corporation, who refused to fill out the form, which he

considered an invasion of privacy. His son would

clearly not qualify under the income guidelines, but

there can be no question as to his need for this pro -,

gram as a potential high school dropout and an 'at

risk' youth...The boy has been in trouble at school- -

as to his studies and behavior, was recently the

driver of a car involved in a serious accident. (He

was 'stoned' at the time.) According to Bill, the

state DOL takes the position that this student should,

be 'terminated' because the income form does not comply, even though it, seems evident that the program is

providing the only success experience (perhaps 'nonfailure experience' would be enough of a description)

he has. Bill suggests that DOL is asking,CBO's

(Community-Based Organizations) to target a population

'at risk youth') they (the DOL) don'tknow very

ch about, and therefore rely on criteria which are

frequently irrelevant. Another boy in the program was,.

recently arrested for grand larceny; his father is 'a

successful, upper-income person.' Bill asks, 'Does

<
-24-

that mean he's not needy?' He estimates-that the

intake form comprised a problem for about one-third.

of the program participants; the legalistic language

and nature of the prescribed intake interview was

difficult for them to understand, and in addittbn the

information needed was hard to obtain." (Joan Schine,

Program Aisociate of the National Commission on

Resources for Youth).

c. Public/non-profit restriction

One of the most common complaints registered by program operators involves

the restriction of job slats to public and private non-profit agencies.

"The problem of meaningful work experi nce and training must be addressed by program oper tors and by

those who make the rules. It would be the proposal

of this program and' its participants to allow enrollees to enter into the private sector where necessary. A much greater variety and certainly many

more opportunities for training are available."

(Vocational Opportunity and Development for Youth,

Clinton).

1

Some operators point to the difficulty of establishing career ladder in the

non-profit sector.

"The program involved career ladders, but on a

limited basis; limited because we can only place

our trdinees in non-profit agencies and many of

thesp agencies do not have the capital to hire

additional help." (DIC, New London).

Others point to.supTision problems in such agencies.

"Supervision tf participants at work sites was at

times insufficient. Due to the fact that participants were placed atcnon-profit agencies which Are

often understaffed, time afforded for supervision

was often minimal." (Youth Career Development

Program, Cromwell).

An interesting summary of this general problem is provided by one YCCIP operator.

a

lc 0

1
Pr R.

- 25 -

"The intrinsic problem with work experience programs is that employmentopporeunities offered by

them are considered to be distinct from employment

in the private sector by participants as well as

by program designers. Youth did not develop a

commitment to the job and therefore demonstrated

poor work habits. Particularly in YCCIP projects,

skills developed are not readily transferable to

any private sector occupation. Most individuals

placed by program staff were placed in industries

in which either very little skills were required

or they were required to learn a new skill. Work

experienceeprojects should be designed carefully

by program operators to resemble the private

sector to ensure development of appropriate

marketable skills and in order that youth experias much as possible the realities and responsibilities of the everyday working world. .(Park

Development and Maintenance Program, Cromwell).

A staff person in a Waterbury, program said about the more general question of worksites "CETA seems to.) sensitive to participants, and not to care

about worksites. This sort of program can't work without good worksites and

you have to be considerate of them."

d. Transportation

A number ofbprogram operators in the state serve large geographical areas.

Transportation of clients, as well as staff, often presents problems. Minibus

services provided by state or local agencies, carpools, leased vans, etc.,

have been used, but in some areas aotential clients who have no private means

of transportation go unserved or face a very limited range of employment experience alternatives. The problem is most'severe outside of the largest urban

centers where some form of public transportation is usually available.

0

4,

80

O
e. Need for more supervision and administration

In a variety of ways, a number of.operators have indicated that there

is a need to augment youth program funds currently available for supervision

of clients and for program administration. One YCCIP operator Rotes that:

...the funding ratio of administrative and superviaory costs to client costs often prevented the

program from hiring more qualified staff, better

trained supervisors, and bettelequIpment and

materials. These factors often made the program

a less meaningful employment experience for youth."

(Park Development and Maintenance Program, Cromwell).

This same program was able to supplement its supervisory staff with a-contri=

butiOn of one town employee's time, but this proved to be an unsatisfactory

arrangement.N

"The situation in which two supervisors one hired

by the program, the other provided as n in-kind

contribution from the-town, were utilized was'less

than ideal. When other projects demanded more and

more of ehe time of the town-provided supervisor

'until he became no longer available tb the program,

the ratio of one supervisor to 15 participants made

program operations difficult. Volunteers from the . town did alleviate some of these problems, but youth

could not receive the individualized attention from

which they could have benefitted greatly."

These problems are stimulating some resource shifts which may not be completely

desirable. In FY 79, this parabor operator ".,,will work with in-school

rather than out-of-school youth who appear to require more individual attention

and supervision than a group project setting can provide."

81
-27-

B Supervision les not always a matter of discipline or iparting technical

.

. skills. Because, of the lack4cf selfrconfidence of many of the program participants, adult supervis n is often needed more for--rEassurance than for

./

. 1

authority.

Budgets containing4Radequate proyisions for administrative and supervisoty costs sometimes result from efforts to satisfy perceived legislative

intent. An outside observer discribes het conversationocal "grants -

man who was responsible for drafting the proposal fora YCCIP program. '

"At the outset, and throughout our interview, Betty

echoed the feeling I had already4gotten from the

other adults that the lacr of art, administrator (or

supervisor) specifically 'assigned 4) the YEDPA pro=

gram was 0 real drawback. However,'she'did indicate

that in writing the proposal she had knowingly

omitted seeking funds for such a role 'in order to

put all the money where Congress wants to see it go,-

in salaryrand fringes.' She now speculates that

'perhaps we could have gotten the money for an

administrator to_begin with.'" (Comments on Westport

YCCIP project by Joan Schine, Program Associate of

the National Commission-on Resources for Youth,

5/12/78).,

In,addition to affecting the ualiey of the prdgrams offtred, efforts to

keep local overhead abnOrmally low may well stack the deck against smaller

and newer program operators. One established operator made an interest Ong

observation which is pertinent. He noted that prime sponsors and the DOL

often frown upon operators who establish local "empires" in the admiilistration

of a wide range of service programs; yet without such scale economies he

4

OP
r

/

I

/0- - 28 -

i. and many other experienced operators would find low - overhead programs like

YEDPA difficult to operate. He wondered how, smaller ptograms could possibly

provide. the range of services required by YEDPA clients.

Keeping overhead ratios unusually low, so as to serve'the maximum number

of youth, may not only dilute the quality

, of services rendered, but may also . serve to discourage the "entry' of new and innovative

. operators. This presents an obvious conflict betWeen various YEDPA goals:- It may also serve as

a subtle signal to operators that spending dollars matters more than providing

. .

1, quality programs to DOL.

. 141r partial response to the problem of inadequate'worksite supervision,

prime sponsor'plans for FY'79 call for an increased commitment to OJT. It is

hoped that this approae h will not only improve the quality of the work experience, but will stimulate the transition to unsubsidized employment.

4

2D. Systematic Differenres in Performance

- 4.1 I

TheYEDPA amendments to CETA 'urged prime sponsors to give special consideration to CBO's. In the absence of a thorough outcome evaluation it is perilous . to generalize about the relative skills of CBO's, LEA's, municipal entities,

national organizations and the like. Nevertheless, a few things are apparent

'about each. The LEA's appear ,to have a definite advantage in attempting to . ,

.

Oper e p'ograns that confer academic credit. Secondly:, tEes 'typically, but ,

4

-

, '4) not all CBO's, have the apparatu in place to deal with the overhead needed . . . ',.

.

, I. r .

10

a

:

1,
V

-29-

to maintain such a program -- particularly given DOL'.desire to minimize

administrative costs. Third, there appears to be confusion on the part of

some program operators as to the meaning of CBO. As such there seems to

be some ill-willeregaiding the interpretation of the intent of Congress

in this area.

Abu

jo

2E. Labor Market Conditions

If one uses the unemployment rate as the sole indicator of conditions,

in the labor market then the, situation throughout much of Connecticut is

apparently better than in the rest of the country. Wbild the state's rate

of unemployment was several points higher than the national mark during

recent recession, the former fell below the latter during the recovery. In

September, 1978 the unemployment rate for Connecticut was 4.3 percent. We ' are skeptical about the meaning of the state unemployment rate for several

reasons--suffice it to observe that the growth of employment here has not

matched the national experience. It may well be that Connecticut's declining

unemployment rate derives as much from net out - migration as.from growing

_employment opportunities. The prevailing view in the state is that labor,

market conditionshave strengthened over the past,year.

A changing, labor market can impact on the youth programs in a variety of

ways. There are at least three direct effects. First, a tightening job

market could dry up the available supply, bf potential program apPlicalits.-

84
QV

- 30 -

None of the prime sponsors or program operators have indicated any "problems"

of this sort. The queues to enter the programs are sufficiently long so that even if they are shortened, virtually no program operators have difficulty

in identifying acceptable applicants.'

A second effect Of an improving job market could be to lead to more

terminations from programs. Thus, for example, a youth might drop out of a

projectpaying only the minimum wage, offering only limited hours of work,

and with the certainty of no long-term opportunity to enter other, unsubsidized,

employment providing something more attractive on one or mote of these scores.

Obviously, some of this has occurred for each of the prime sponsors yet we do

not detect that this has been a major source of terminations. More significantly, perhaps, we do not hear that the improving employment scene is leading

to an increasing flow of terminations.

04' -A third effect, potentially, of an improving job environment is. that it

leads to more successful outcomes to training and, hence, through feedback

effects increases the demand for entry into the programs. Such an effect

could even lead to a decline in drop-out rates if trainees find some real

A

-value in remaining with a program till it is completed. Since there has been

an excess quantity demanded of slots in the program it is hard to observe if

the situation has changed over the past year. We have had no information to

suggest that improved outcomes have led to a decline in usual 4urnover rates.

A, The indirect effects of a reduced rate,of'unemployment occur as this

4111 ' leads to reduced CETA funding. In particular, some program operators. appear

to be providing administrative services for VEDPA out of funds they receive

O 85

O

I,
ft

),)

- 31 -

under other titles. As these funds are reduced they are not available to

provide services to youth working under YEDPA. Further, as public service

employment slots are reduced the,pool of YEDPA supervisors will be reducdd.

Both Of these effects have occurred to at least one of our prime sponsors

(Hartford).

2F. Other Issues Related to.Turnover

At least two other issues relating to turnover of YEDPA youth have so

far been neglected. One relates to the use of incentives, particularly

economic ones, to cut down on wasteful turnover. A second matter that concerned us was whether replacements of dropouts could redeive'any (adequate)

training if they entered a program well after it had begun.

While YEDPA legislation doe nOt preclude wages above the legal minimum,

BOS prime sponsor policy for 'FY 78 was to restrict operators to the payment

of the minimum wage. A common complaint among operators there was not that

this wage was too low to attract applicants (in fact, many programs-had

waiting lists), but rather th this uniform wage structure failed to provide.

necessary incentives. The minimum wage was paid throughout the Water ury

prograh as well as in'Hartford (with the exception of some YCCIP youthtdoing

construction work for $3.50/ht. in Hartford).

4 In Waterbury, onl program operator reported losing some youth to deadend jobs (dishwashers, etc., because they could earn more there'than in the

program. (It ought. to be4noted that some youth at least appear motivated

4

a 4

8
-32-

mare by we ly or total earnings than by the hourly rate itself.) The youth

in question may have improved themselves, economically (marginally at least),

but lost the benefits of the various program services that YEDPA provided

and that they appeared badly to heed--at least according to the program

operator. In another situation in Waterbury the problem wps that these youth , . (slow-learners) were placed into jobs alongside adults who were also earning

the minimum wage and who resented these youth. Moreover, the problem was

exacerbated as these mature workers felt the youth did not carry their own

weight and thereby made morvifork for them.

Yet some, program operators strongly believed that a minimum wage limitation--throughout the life of the program- -was damaging. To paraphrase one of

them "We try to teach these kids that there are payoffs to positive work

attitudes, dependability, initiative, and performance, but within our own

program we can't reward them for those things." TlIsse sentiments are repeated

in a number of the written reports from program operators to the prime sponsor.

e

"The area pf development of good wort' habits and

attitudes was one which the program had attempted

to address. Good work habits werl reinforced

through opportunities for leadership and tasks

with additional responsibility. However, as monetary rewards did not accompany. these opportunities,

youth become discouraged and lapsed into poor work

habits demonstrated by other program participants

and dropped out of the proiram,entirely." (Park

Development and Maintenance Program, Cromwell).

"Some sort of use incentive program should lie'

implemented (on an'experlmental basis) for those , who perform well. A reward (whether it be finan-

.cialor not) should be given. This may increase

self esteem, productivity afid perforMance."

,(Vocational Opportunity and Development for

YoUth, Clinton).

a 8;

I
- 33 -

"Depending ou the level of funding in the future,

we should like to institute an incentive plan of

wage increases so that clients may experience-the

relationship between dailytwOrk performance and

monetary gain." (Thamds Valley Council for

Community Action, Jewett City).

BOS planners have responded to these concerns by incorporating some

wage flexibility in YEDPA plans for FY 79. As iartiof its knowledge development,efforts, BOS will monitor programs which use incentive gage scales and

\, .

will try to assess the on job performance, work habits, attendance,

and retention rates. This information will then be shared with YEDPA

operators in the BOS.

Less concern was expressed by vtogram operators about the other issue

of turnover. Most program operators felt that the problem oyate entry

ainto programs--due to early terminations--was at most a small problem. Clearly,

where the program is almost totally a work experience program that places one

or two youth at a job site, the problem is minimal. Where a group of students

observes a professional at a job site, and the learning occurs in phases, e.g.,

the building reconstruction project under YCCIP-Hartford, the student'Will miss

some training unless the subject matter is later repeated for another class'of\

trainees. In summary, where program operators are able to give relatively

individualized attention to students, persons entering a program late do not

lose out. Where the training is provided in a grouped setting, there are

obvious difficulties. Given:this circumstance, most program operators arrange

P 4, 411

88
0 0

- 34 -

their training activities accordingly. From the perspective of program

real problem created by non-positive terminations is the loss

and the added paperliork associated with a leaver &id a new

ope tors the

to the youth, (41

\

. entiant.'

3A. Youth Councils

3. The Present Situation'

The condition of the Youth Councils throughout this past year has been

a £nstant. Prime sponsors see them as a necessar condition to satisfy the

holders of the purse strings in the Regional Office but as of no other usefulnesp. The BOS was candid.in its annual report to Boston, "Although the

Youth Council fulfilled its minimum obligations under the regulations, it did

not a ively participate in the planning process to the extpient originally

inte Due to lack otintereat in Youth CounCil'activities or a lack of

information about their responsibilities, some members were not easily induced'

to attend meetings. When they did attend the yOuth-members were typically

unprepared for Youth Council business.

Perhaps the lack of apparent _interest by the youth members refl2cts their

Jack of a direct stake in the program.. Possibly, it play be a rational response

by them if they perceive their lack of real authority or influence on prOgrams.

In any case all parties seem to understand the pro forma nature of the Youth

5

- Council except the Regional office, forin.rejecting; a plan submitted hy

Hartford they recently wrote?

89

O
4

- 35 -

The role of your Youth Council in reviewing

projects must be a vital part of your Youth programs. This does not appear to be the situation

in your program. Our review of the minutes of the

Hartford Area'Manpower Planning Council, (HAMPC)/

Youth Pl4nniq,Council Meeting on August 14, 1978

showed alt following:

a. Only three HAMPC members were present out

of a total of 17 members appointed. This number

could not be considered a quorum and we do not

consider the resplts of this meeting to be'valid

grounds for determining-your program's content and

direction.

,b. None of the members specifically composing

the Youth Planning Council membership were present. %%Mgt.

0 c. Of thosewlembers present, no one was a

CETA eligible youtff.

(Letter 9/24/78)

I; Hartford, both the Planning. Council and the Youth Council are being

reconstituted. In Waterbury the Youth Council is becoming a subcommittee of

the larger CETA Council. It will consist of 4 persods none of whom were on

- .the previous Youth Council. An effort is being made to spur their interest

by having them design the questionnaires that will survey program operators,

participants and others about their reactions to the program. For BOS a new

4 Youth Council is being formed.

40-

3B. The'Role of LEA's and the Granting td Academic Credit

0

the relationship between the prime sponsors and the, schools was

quite mixed during YEDPA's first year there was a common situation regarding

w

rs I

b

41-
-36-

the issuing of academic credit for fork experience. In Hartford, all of YETP

kr.

(and thus the vast bulk of YEDPA) operated through LEA's. Indeed, there were

only two YETP projects (for the City of Hartford and for the other towns in

the consortium) and both contracts were held bylEA's. The delay in starting

up the programs caused the question of academic credit to slip by but that

will likely be dealt with in the current year. indeed, Hartford sought to

have its current year YETP simply continue'last year's program but the Regional

Office has so far rejected this on the grounds that CBO's are not being given

the special consideration that the statute requires. Thus, there is no plan

A presently, but if the prime sponsor's original version were to have been accepted,

academic credit would have been granted through both LEA's. r

In the BOS it is important to. distinguish between the LEAs who receive

YETP funds (the State's six Regional Education Service Centers) and the educational establishment (particularly high schools).' Relations between these two

groups and :ietween each group and local program operators seem to vary widely

across the BOS. One YEDPA operator claims that:

Although educationaDinstitutions were cRracted

to assure that services'were dertvered to those

most in need (drop-outs) little or no cooperation

was obtained. (Vocational Opportunity and DeIelopwent for Youth, Clinton).

; 4 the other extreme, a YETP operator in Cromwell describes the local high

school's role in planning the program/as "instrumental." Another operator

sepas most grateful for the assistance of a few educators, but suggests that

brOader linkages still need to'be established.
-37-

Better coordination should be made between.student's academic programs and their work experiences,

particularly if they are receiving academic credit.

Again it is strongly felt that teachers and administrators should be encouraged to havefrequent

worksite visits which would result in not only better

coordination-between academic programs and work projects, but also would be a real source of affirmation

for the student's. Our, strongest link in the 1978

program with the school was with a work study counselor

and a headmaster. Their support was invaluable in

that it led to acceptance of the program at the high

school and herd municipal supervisors to provide

support services to students in severe need. (Youth

Adult Council, Westport).

Because of the potential competition in attracting clients and developing

worksites, relations between LEAs (i.e., thesiX Regional EdtEi-Eilinal. Service

Centers) and other YEDPA operators is a more sensitive issue, and historically

these relations have not been very good. Problems remain, as evidenced by the'

following comment frOm OIC New Britain.

"Improvement is needed between the.YETP Out of School

Component, which is operated by OIC NB, and the In

School Component, which is coordinated through the

Capitol Region Educat on Council (CREC) -for The

Balance of State Pri e Sponsor."

On the other hand, there 1.;\e&Me encouraging evidence that in some areas: the

cooperation between LEAs, local schools, and other YEDPA operators is improving.

O

In general, my understanding to date about relationships and procedures which have been established with

school counseling staff [is that.they] are moving from

a position of lukewarm acceptance to more positive and

direct involvement. However, in many specific inRtances thereis a high degree of cooperation even

where YETF programs and loCal school CWE [Career Work,

gc 92
-38-

Experience] programs are'being conducted. In other

instances, local school counseling staffs are still

somewhat resistant. Only one school in the twenty-

, two (22) high schools to be served has not elected

to participate in LEARN's YETP Program. (Project

LEARN, Madison/East Lyme).

Another bone of the six LEAs descrjbes the improvement in relations with other

' CETA operators.

Local agencies assisted, the APES staff, but only, after

it became evident that we could mutually benefit from

the involitement with each other. Local CETA agencies

initially felt we

is

seeking to take

' job sites and plac s trom their agencies. After

some confrontation and dialogue; all of us realized

that our educational focus could be anasset to kids

working and placing kids was an area 4:which local . OETA people.had expertise. (Area Cooperative EducatioR Services, New Haven).

In the BOS there was also a problem in getting academic credit Into place

for programs last year. The prime sponsor's annual report made thi'quite

clear:

The granting of academic crecjt for rk experi7

ence is seen as valuable to participants and is considered an excellent way of guaranteeing higher

'quality.wonic experiences. Unfortunately, FY 78's

plans,for establishing procedures for granting academic credit mere not as successful as anticipated.

Only one program operator considered achievements in

this area satisfactory during FY 78. Westport Youth.

Adult. Council established procedures for granting

, credit and arrange4. for school staff members to

regularly visit the(participants,at their worksites:.: 9

Their FY 79 plan anticipates increased contact between

school staff, 'tCCIP staff members and participants.

1

33

6 I f

o
-39-

Program operators who were dis4pointed with

. achievements in-the area of academic credit

attributed their lack of success' to their failure

to have arrangements for the granting of credit

in place priirr to the onset of the FY 78 program.

This has been rectified for FY079.

0.number of program operators had planned

tq:,involve work experience participants in educate

tonal pmponents designed to prepare them for GED,

courses which would give them credit's towards

igh school diploma. Motivation was however a

problem. and the development of successful motivational techniques will be a concern of FY 79 program operators.

Even programs designed to encourage acquisition of a General Equivalency

Diploma (GED) have been slow to produce results.

"Tile component that provides assistance fb; parti-

, cip,antA to acquire their equivalency diploma has

met with soje problipms. The real individual need

for a.diplOma and'fffie motivation for the acquisition

of the diploma seeks to have been overestimated by

us. While we halls provided the opportunity tb all

who qualify, only a portion have taken advantage

and as of this date two have passed. Four more are

scheduled to take the test in October." (OIC, New

Britain).

, A basic' problem ina DPA's firqp'year-was the' limit imposed by the plan-

, ningcycle. Things now a e improved., Manyof the FX 79 operators have

entered the present academic year-with agreements in place. Moreover, some

have more experience in dealing with the motivational problems cited above.

/' . In Waterbury there was only'a single credit granting program',1ast year

and its importance may have been minimal. As reported in an earlier report,

this involved giving high schOol dropbuts some training in art at a local

-

94

\

,

4
- 40 -

community college. Since these students lacked high school diplomas, pos.-

sible college level credit was of little use to them. As in Hartford and

BOS there was no time to develop credit programs last year. This year, a

Board of Education YETP will provicie credit. It was no simple matter to

t , 2

push this through in Waterbury but it became practical when career education

personnel were added to the program in addition to the usual counseling staff.

This apparently has assured the granting authority that the necessary quality

controls would exist in the program.

In a number of instances we have heard that local school officials

(teaching staff and administrators) have been cool to YEDPA. In an earlier

report we noted that part of this stemmed from an enlarged work load with u

the needed incentives. Each of the prime sponsors seems hopeful that co pera-

, tion can improve this year. Several have suggested that YEDPA was too new

0

, last rear to be taken seriously: While it may not have become institutionalized in the meantime, it is gaining ,increasing recognition as an ongoing

program.

We have heard no :sugrstions from within any of the areas examined that'

YED is encoura school leaving. If this is a problem in some jurisaic7-4

ons it does not appear to be a problem in Connecticut.a

3,C., .Links-itik\SPEDY -

. .

. #

$ ......-Eatkpl4 .the Orime%ponsors handled their SPEDY-programs'somewhat dif-

"

0 4. re , 'i .:. "ii l , ferently, at least aS1,t' was linked te"the'lperatiorof either-YCCIE,,OtYETP.

i

Ir,. 0, : 2 ,. , 0 i ;N. . °

.

4

*

ice . 1 ''.

..,

, 1 5

%

... ,.

,.

.T e er i 1 `.

4' °

:. 4"'

A '41.4.04,'6 let' I 1 '' "' Tsai 1 .7%.).3

,

4

,

,

0

i,

.

t .-'4

. 4

.

.

. 70

.

'A°

- 4.10' ,Iii. 0

.4

-. .1".it

1

%

i

, ra 3 ', S. t

.. 4i,'

.

.
, 41

There appear, however, to hale beeTfA problems over-all in administering..

the ummer program and the prime sponsors seem to 'handle it With familiarity

and so e-ease.,,,ione of the piime sponsors or the program operators at lease

: see the SPEDY program As being a substitute for the new ,youth 15rogtams. Its

. ;,. goal ,is perceived as a simple one--to keep you* 9ff the..streets in the sumMer'.

, 7 4 , and to provide them with some spending money. F ...,

i.' . .. ,,.

. ......

., . In the City of Hartford SPEDY is notaa.well iAtsgrated with title III

programs.isnt is in the rest of the consortium. In the suburbs the youths

1 .

. . ' J , involved in YETP in dhe spring of 1978, Iwere switched over.-.W1 spyy for the . 0 , .

. .

. , . , summer, theft switched back to YETP in the'fal1. To a,large extent these youth

..:. . . ,. in the 'suburbs did the same sorts of things under SPEDY (except,

- of course,'for ,

.,, ... ,t . . -.

.. the academic compbnent) 'that they did under YETP; both:buburban programs, are,

. . . 0-, . t . . . c. N O. 0 retie by "the sameprogram operatdr CREC. On some suburbanjbb sites the support

services' were the same for SPEDY and YETP. Under YETP worksipt andtraiping° ,

' 0. - . AN3fli 'ff A*, r 1 4

zr- .0 . r 4. represented about 32% ,df the cost of the,prdgram;, Under 'YCC/P training and;

,s,..., ., .

I . * 0 v. q.. .. .... services, were 30Z of ,the coat of ehe Prograt; arid.,Uhder SPED? efaining and tile. ,r, ..

... 0' ..e...,43.

.

s ""i , 01 : . 4 ' , r eaerv.cekiwere aboutNe df. Elie; cost of the'prpgra4*: . . 4..

k i 4 .

. " I.

,., 4 , ' ..' li

,.; . \. o ' , -' , ..

. . .

: Wi th,:the urban component there were no ,Planned lin kages b"r etv,eeta SPEDY and ,

. i ,a .4 ',lie -c." 4 -4 '`" °

, : , ,, - . ,": . " ,-- 4, . '

. / ' ' , ./

-' A Ydiri; ;1341- theretias. .definite cycle tol:pe traitjng underyGC1P-, thec.e

''

.11: ..-d' ,. a I A

1 VII, 4:.. igre no 14 s c4ake on SPEDY pa irp.,was possible, however,fto _go

. ,... $ .,

A o 4

:*3' * 401a YCCIP- to, SPVY. . r., ,,

It

-4

r

* a

496
A

a

-42-

Both. YETP and SPEDY pay,the minimum wage in the urban and the suburban

component. Support services in t'he' suburban'component were similAr under

both programs since the youths switched from YEP to SPEDY for the shmmer.

Support services for SPEDY in the City component were less extensive than

under YETP or YCCIP. YCCIP wages'Were above. the minimum level, so that there

_was-little incentive_ for_enrolleeS tg switch from YCCIP to SPEDY.

For the Hartfordconsortium, enrollments and spending were about 93 percent of planned levels. Generally, the program appears to have operated well

this past summe*.

The SPEDY program appears to have been successful in Waterbury also. The

largest single program operator ,under YEDPA(NOW) administered the entire

SPEDY program in Waterbury creating some obvious linkages. ,',bout 890 youth

enrolled in the summer program.

. Participants were allowed to work Eor 'up to 25 hours 'a week in, the summer

program and all were paid at the minimum wage. Since Waterbury's out-of-school

programs allowed up to 30 hours per wit pf work there was, no incentive for

these youth tolawitch to SPEDY. Since two of the in-school YEDPA programs

involved students with special problems only a very few of these switched to

SPEDY. Where they did.switch their incentive to move came from the opportunity . to work longer hours. Well over onelalf of those in the NOW in-school program

did switch to SPEDY, also operated by NOW.

Most of the youth in SPEDY worked in maintenance or childcare positions at

local playgrounds or day camps. There were only 6. few 4obs provided aside from

0

"Ow tri

w
- 43 -'

these so that the quality of work was on par with or slightly below those in

YEDPA. The SPEDY Program in Waterbury is designed in at least two ways to

encourage high school completion. First, the program begins with an orientation session that stresses the value of a high school education. Secondly,

the jobs to which the enrollees were exposed (but not the ones they held) all

---rsqu5red having_eameLa_high school diploma. Aproblem for the program

operator occurred at thsummer's end when many of the youth in SPEDY sought

to transfer to the far smaller number of slots available in YETP.

SPEDY programs served 573/ 1 youth in the ,50S during the summer of 1978.

This was about 96% of the planned figure. About 93% of the youths served

were high school students at the 4ime of entry, and about 89% ofthe program

participants returned to full-time schooling. All Clients were reported to

,be economically disadvantaged, and about 70% came from households with incomes

less than 85% of the lower living standard. The greatest departures from the

plan occurred in. areas of employment entry (30% of plan) and the servicing of

high' school dropouts (12% of plan). This latter group, however,4played a significant rp2e in both YETP (44% of participants) and YCCIP (55% of participants).

Such figures suggest that SPEDY served a rathe-i-11-1.4uferent group than

either of the year-round programs. The closest substitute for-''SPEDY might be

the in-sohool.portion of.YETP, which was administered by the six RegionalEducation Service Centers (LEAs).4,

I

1 -
- 44 -

'There is little evidence of significant shifts between various components

of YEDPA and the SPEDY,.programs.- Given the minimum wage structure in all youth

programs run by the BOS, there seems to be little incentive for clients to

make such shiftd unless there are substantial differencei in the opportunity

for hours of work (SPEDY programs in the BOS were restricted to a maximum of

25 hours per week).

4

Not surprisingly, thy' quality of the work experience and emphasis on

training also appear to have been greater under YETP,andYCCIP than SPEDY.

Moreover, while SEEDY serv4ces placed a heavy emphasis on the introduction

to vocational.opportunities, YETP programs seem to have provided a much-broader

range of client services.

A noteworthy instance,of cooperation between an LEA and lolal YEDPA

operators occurred during the SPEDY program. One of the six LEAs, Project

LEARN, negotiated an agreement with the Middlesex Manpower Planning Agency

and the Southeastern Connecticut Manpower Planning Agency (TVCCA) to provide

career counseling services and transition services to in-school youth enrolled - in SPEDY programs of the latter two agencies. Ilia subsequent letter to Project

LEARN, a representative of one of the agencies concludes that:

"The Career Education Workshops should be an integral

part.df the SPEDY Program. Thanks to Project LEARN

we had more materials and personnel to help make this

project worthwhile." (Thames Valley Council for

Community Action, Jewett City).

The coordinator of the other SPEDY program served by LEARN also was pleased

with Ihe.outcome,

V 7

, 99

r

1/4
; It appears that SPEDY forced local operators to substantially augment

their counseling services for a relatively short span of time; at least

some of them found it attractive: to turn to She LEA for these shoit-term

v supplemental services. This.may be an important institutional benefit of

the SPEDY program that merits closer attention.

3D Pubes Vb].ity of YEDPA

Since Connecticut is a very small state geographically,` any bad'publicity focused on a CETA program is generally disseminated throughout the

state quickly. Two prime sponsors (Bridgeport and Hartford) *have experienced exceptional problems--and the attendant publicityduring this past

.year and very major difficulties have occurred in the Springfield, Mass.

CETA, just a fefiriles from the Connecticut YOrder. We wondered whether

such publicity had tarnish the YEDPA programs in the public's mind at

least as perceived by program operators and the prime sponsors.

Generally, the YEDPA programs seem,to have had only limited visibility,

and where they have received public exposure, it has been favorable. YEDPA

youth prepared exhibits, plays nd actively helped out at Waterbgry's.first

. 1. "CETA Day" on October 18, 197 . Attendees included Governor Grasso, Repre-,

mit sentative Sarasin, Mayor Bergin and a Regional Office administrator. The

youth did so well that they were called upon for an encore when Mrs. Walter

Mondale visited the city in November.

-
4

In Ha\ford,

/

-46- a

youth prdgrams have received no unfavorable public-

, ity'despite the lar e amount heaped upon.the rest ofthe CETA program.

Indeed, the buildin: -renovation in the heart of the Puerto Rican community

is quite visiple a d apparently very popular there. Hartford would like

to continue the p ogram into 1979 but the'entire program is in doubt subject R ,o the approval o

-

Hartford's plan by the/Regional Office.

Palicity aid image isinot a trivial issue iniartford. With all of

the problems encountered by the cOsortiom this past year, it serves to

raise the lingering matter of whether the various towns should leave the

, condatium--possibly associating with BOSS The matter has been discb-Ssed

equite frequently since this summer's debacle, and further and continuing

poor publicity ill hasten the dissolution of the consortium.

For the B'S the youth prograts have Maintained a ,low pr6file. It was

. pointed out to 6 that most operators use the acronyms YEDPA, YETP or YCCIP

to refer, to th programs, instead of calling them.Title III CETA programs.

1

This may be an indicator of the images of both sets of programs.

O

3E.1 Staff Tra ning

The qual t; of the youth programs in Connecticut is'largely a function

of the calibe of persons administering them for the prime sponsors.' As

such we sough to learn more about.tBeir training and experience.

Superfic ally, at least one element appears to be quite common across

our prime spo sors. CETA staff generally, and persons assigned to youth

1.01
I

- 47 -

programs'in particular, are very young, frequently in their twenties or early

thirties. PerhaPs there has been an effort to trade off enthusiasm for

experience although prevailing pay scales may be a more rational source of

explanation.

Educationally, there igoonci apparent pattern of preparation. The CETA

1 -1-Direct-or t-Waterbury-oily receRtly completed hisbachelces dqgree while

studying on a part-time basis. His deputy was an unemployed school teacher,

and the program monitor is a former factory worker'with an associate's degree.

Four peons now operate the youth programs for BOS and at least two of them

have worked previously in the field for BOS'as monitors of programatorB4

While this group has functioned well there its uncertainty about the advancement ladder there. Thus, if the youth director were to leave, there is some

possibility that his replacement would have no program }xperience at all.

In Hartford, the turnover of personnel (either caused by people leaving

the CETA agency or being, moved within it) has decimated the youth programs.

Os noted earlier then d is no institutional memory and this is compounded by

the turnover of the Fed Reps. Thus, even with training provided by DOL, when

-.these people leave--as they hayk--the product of past training leaves-also./

As of November 1, 1978 only 6 of the 50 or so CETA staffers haye been in the

organization for two or more years.

When training is given to prime sponsor staff by DOL, it typically is

of a procedural sort e.g., how to comply with some new regulations. Some

program operators,have suggested to us that they be allqwed to provide

102
training to prime sponsor and Regional Office staff in substantive areas.

While.the offer is partly facetious and meant to be ironic, it derives

from their view,that.the source of money knows little about youth and the

problems involved in working with them.

3F. Prime Sponsors and the Regional Office

One aspect of YEDPA that has not been emphasized in our earlier reports

is the critical nature of the relationship between the prime sponsors and

the Regional Office. The issue'is a very sensitive one since Staff in the

former,are aware that-the latter can make their lives difficult at every

stage of their'operation. A8\ such while we have had some rather negative

feedback regarding the Regional Office, the tone is frequently restraint-d,

and we understand that not all criticisms are to be placed'on the record by

us. We have also heard some.praise for the Regional Office, particular

for the job done by some Fed Reps1

It is difficult for us to sort out how much of this criticism i.7 s simply

the inevitable product of the strains that 'Must result when a line agency

seeks maximum fl-ixibility and is, thwarted by a higher level staff group.

Moreover, many of the frustrations that are expressed by the'prime sponsors

have also been voiced to us about them by their own progr4i operatois. One

can easily suppose that an analogous set of frustrations prevails at

'14

\\

regional level in terms of its own. relations with DOLWashington.'

103
C

A

Because these partially adversarial relationships are predictable it

I;

-49-

c

I is difficult to evaluate the true nature of prime sponsor-Regional Office

relatiOns, rather than the impression of the persons involved. The basic

-, question that 4e wil se to resolve by the next reportis whether the

, Regional Office assists more than it hinders the delivery of mandated services through the prime sponsors.

In its e6-of-year report on youth programs, the BOS prime sponsor

'1

limits discussion of its relations with the DOL to the following paragraph:

"On the Prime Sponsor level, we feel that there is

a need for mbre on-site technical assistance during

the planning-and gr nt preparation stage. Although

the regional offic *stributed a written grant preparation guide, revis s after initial submission

might have been avoided if Regional Office Staff provided more active assistance in the interpretation

of the grant guidelines as well as an insight into

the regional office review process."

4 This limited coverage of prime sponsor/DOL relations. probably signifies

i

remarkable restraint rather than calm waters. 411 the prime sponsors would

much prefer tobe told" as their planning develops whether certain decisions

are acceptable to Boston. While this does occur in some cases, thd prime

sgAnsors still turn in their plans much as students submit a term paper, umert_ain whether they will be graded.harihly for some unanticipated breach in

C'

their analysis. On other occasions the prime sponsors hope to get something

past the scrutiny of the Regional Office sensing that the matter may no longer

be a priority item for the DOL. Perhaps mostobjectionable about these

1 Q4
.

- 50 -

practices is the perception that kl-Boscon is carefully monitoring ,every

little,issue legalistically, rather than commenting on the bigger issues

relating.to the substance of the programs. This view causes some.to believe

that the two decision rules by which the Regional Office operates are,

"spend the money" and "don't make, trouble ".

-An example of some of this involves Hartford and the BOS seeking to

react to Boston's rejection of their initial 79 plans. In'the BOS the

first Set of suggested revisions contained 17items. While some of these

items reflect legitimate DOL concerns which ought to'be addressed by fund

recipients, others seem to have little or no bearing'on the quality or

macy of the proposed youth programs.. One item among the second Set of

Pagional Office suggestions ,,for example, deals with "...the problem of

time allocations expressed inn fractions of percents," BOS staff Were duly

informed by. the Regional Office that: "This methodology conflicts with

established prime sponsor policy and, moreover, -it is incongruent with sound

accounting practices.,"

In-the BOS certain practices that were used in selecting program,operators

Caere deemed satisfactory a year ago but now must be explained again according

to the Regional Office. Similarly, Hartford is uncertain if it will be allowed

to repeat its, use of the same program operators as I,ast year or whether in so

doing they demonstrate their lack of special consideration for the CBO's.

, .

105
51 - 4. The Future

* 4A. Planning 'for 1979

a The planning process. in Waterbury and the BOS was somewhat smoother

than the first4 time around but it was far from ideal. In Hartford the situation this-year may have been even worse than last year. The uncertainty

revolving around the CMP deficit pervaded Hartford's planning cycle. The

-------- . RFP's were initially scheduled to be issued in June but HaTtford City Hall

I held them up until the last week in July. A meeting was held on Au st 7

during which about go organizations were briejed about YCCIP grant procedures.

Those organizations who chose to apply for the grants had to submit a "bare-

. bones outline" of their propo al to the prime sponsor by August 11. These

C'

proposals were quickly, evaluated by the prime sponsor and were presented to

a joint meeting of the I;xecutive Committee of HAMPC and the Youth Planning

. Council on August 14. At the meeting a C} staff member."reiterated that DOL

merely wanted a sense from the committee as to priorities for unding" (as

._quoted in the "Minutes")... Only three of the 17 HAMPC members attended _he

So

meeting; no members of the Youth Planning Council were present. Grant.proposal

"abstracts" for yccjp were due in the Regional'Office on August 15: The complete proposals' were due August 25. Hence, there was little,time fer grant-

. "4 . requesting agencies,td put together proposals or for other community input

.

. , (as retlected by HAMPC or the YPC).

N '

106

1

0
52

The prime sponsor limited the YETP RFP to LEA's. The Regional,Office

found this unacceptable, citing CETA regulation 97.705(c)(2) which requires

Special consideration be given to tBO's of demonstrated effectiveness.

Hartford believed they had sitnply duplicated the (accepted) practice,used in

the previous year. Thus, CMP has been forced to issue a new RFP. Because

o of the limir'ed tithe available to put together the grant proposals, it seems

clear the prime sponsor felt compelled to keep the same program operators.

The prime sponsor was also understaffed and very inexperienced. These ele

. ments also seem to have led them to' choose existing program operators.

In Waterbury there was more time available to put the 1979 programs in

'place.- The RFP was public for two weeks before proposals had to be submitted.

The CETA staff had a full week to review them prior to returning them for

revisions. These changes were made during a week and the Council then had

the revised proposals for study for 5 days. While the timing was quite

limited it wa far better than the first year. The response to the RFP was

.)

almost as limited as previously although the Council had the luxury this year,

of rejecting two weak proposals. (Last year every YEDPA proposal received

CETA support) More satisfying even thankaving some choice was seeing the

improved quality of some of the propo\als from program operators of the

previous year,

A major irritant to some was the requirement that labor unions and CBOls

t. be given 30 days time in which to comment upon prime sponsor plans prior to . 0 submission to the Regional Office. Given that none of the prime sponsors was

t
-53-

given adequate time to seek out and develop the best programs possible for

1979,'the need to use valuable time in the pT1anning period for such a review

was both Wasteful and exaspeting. Every prime sponsor is aware of the

political realities that such a review serves, but they resent it when it

serves to truncate\an already inadequate planning period,..and when they,anti

cipate that no serious comments will likely result from ttl review.

As noted in a previous report, the timing problem for the BOS is neces

sarily greater than for other prime sponsors. And the matter is simplest

where only a single jurisdiction is involved, e.g. the City of Waterbury,

father than a consortium of towns as in Hartford.

4e. 4B. (31.icy in FY 79

It would be gratifying to report that with a fiscal year of YCOPA under

their collective belts the priMe sponsors are now moving ahead on some long14 term policy goals. Unfortunately, that is,not*at all the case. While the

frenetic condition of last year is behind (though the Hartford situation is

highly unseable) the prime sponsors still appear to be in a'largelf reactive

situation. They were not well positioned to know the ,parameter of FY 79,

nor did,they,know what tipd of reaction their RFP's would elicit. Since the

planning councils were functioning poorly, they were providing'ho policy

direction., Instead, their function appears to'be limitek simply to passing

judgment upon whatever proposals the staff and the RFP process could bring

in. Beyond this thefinal decision onprojectsfis seen as. resting in the

. \

1
A -- -.54 -

NO

Regional.Office, surely undermining the enthusiasm of the prime, sponsors to

serve as entrepreneurs for innovative project's. For example a brand new

oYCCIP project involving a',ner p;ogram op4rator was put forward by Hartford

' this yearwinvolng the rehabilitation of abandoned cars. The Regional Offfce

rejected the,projeCt for seieral reasons including the observation that it

. represented "...an unreasonable and unconscionable application of government

,funds." (While the implied superiority ,of one unit of goverhment s cons ence,

- over another's, may be debatable, there-is no room for argumeht here reg ding

t 4

t. who hat the last word aPpeats clear that the environment for the prime

sponsors is inimical to the development and fulfillmiii-of long tegSpOlicy.

f It may be that the many uncertainties. that obscured the futu re. of the

kh

entire CETA program during the'summet.an¢ autumn of 1973 made long run

). , Pk. planning even less compelling than usual. Possib4, thy prime sponsors will

develop such programsiwell in advance of the planneg cycle for FY 80. If

4

it is a goal,_of DOL to allow the prime sponsors to formulate such policies,

4 the parameters for YEDPA for FY' 80, and the Tull agenda for planning and

approval e.g., dates, 1, reg s

1,

, limitations, etc..should be Pl4blished by

at least December'3 1),, 1978.

-

ob

NM%
Int Report #3.

National Council on

Employment Policy

November 22, 1978

THE YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

-Act of 1977: Albuquerque, New Mexico; Coastal

Bend Area, Texas; and El Paso, Texas

By Vernon M. Briggs, Jr.*.

I Introduction

. . In sharp contrast to events at the beginning of fiscal year 1978, the

d eration of the Youth Employment. and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977

( DPA) in the three southwestern prime sponsor jurisdictions wider review

had becoMe almost routipe by the end of the fiscal yea'r, A year earlier

(Fall 1977), YEDPA had been the central concerniof_th4 prime sponsors in

Albuquerque, New Mexico, the Coastal BAd,Manppwer Consortium, and.E1 Paso,

Texas. By early 1878 attention had been divethl away toward the mandated

build-up of enrollments.in the public Service employment CETA ,itie VI)

program. By mid-year the question of the private sector initiat:ves (i.ey, the establithment of private industry councils proposed under th4 CETA reauthorization); a tpecial crash program to increase employment Vietnamera veterans; 0 well as the fundingiuncertainties associated with tie

protracted Congressional deliberationson 01:2 CETA ronewal legislaticprhad

become the priority,topics.., In the case of the Coastal Bend Consortium, it

has been se12cted as one of 15,prime sponsorsin the nation to participate ..

as a'welfare reform demoristration site, YEDPA has become "a backburner" -. concern. Hence, the year elperience gave ctedence to the lament of one' , prime sponsor spokesman who said, "the prime S'ponsor's role has been relegated largely to one of imple enting programs; it is a role of constant

re-action to new federal-programs and requirements."

Thus, although YEDPA was still of concern to all of the prime sponsors,

it was clear that itiwasa lower rank order of importance. One official

states: "last year when YEDP -A started it seemed complex but, in retrospect

it has not been so hard to deal with." He added, 'in fact, when YEDPA is

'compared with other programs we have had to deal with this year, it is

,% clearly one of,the better thought-out programs at the nat \onal level,"

, . The absence of any substantive planning by he national-administration

of the'nation's,employmentand training ,system has ..ts impcct on the operation of all 'programS at the prime sponsor level. Y DPA, in this regard, isno different than any other program. When it first appeared, YEDPA was the

center of attention. But by the end of k.s' first year, other concerns had ' . comb to the fore. Efforts were made to monitor the separate YEDPA's projects

4 but little time was given to evaluation, knowledge development, or planning

, for the second year. The reality of the world of the prime tOnsors simply

does not permit these types,of activities to occur in any.meaningtil way. As

one official indicated, ."there is no sense of order in the Programs th4 are

Coming frcathe Department of Labor; there is no recognition of the need to/

give time for growth and development'of the existing progra ; sthe prime

',sponsors are forced'to devote their time and efforts to the hoft run concerns of the Department of Labor.rather thato,the long pan objectives Of

what we are doing locally."

*Professor of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University
II. Targeting

The prograrridaa for fiscal year 1978 for each of the prime sponsors

for both the Youth Community Conservation Improvement Program (YCCIP) ands

the Youth Employment and Training Program (YETP) are presented in Table 1.

Given the composition of the local communities under review, it is not

really'surprising that virtually all participants have beer from ethnic

and racial minorities. Although persons from Hispanic backgrounds clearly

dominate, it is apparent that blacks have been given ample opportunities

to participate in the Coastal Bend program. In Albuquerque, although t

is not obvious from Table 1, blacks have Also been given special attention

in YEDPA. It should,be recalled that Albuquerque is also a recipient of a

Tier II grant for a Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project*(YIEPPl. The

YIEPP prograR was placed in'the area of Albuquerque where the - black population'is.most Eoncentrated. YETP and YCCIP, in turn, do not serve that area

of the pity.' Hence, black participation in these programs is understandably

not high. In El Paso the low black participation rate reflects the fact

that blacks comprise less than three percent of the local population.

Female participation n.YCCIP is significantly below that in,YETP in

three .prime sponsor jurisictions. Male perti(ipation in YETP is significantly less than female participation. IQ the case of YCCIP,'the nature of :

the jobs (physical work, out-of-doors, etc.) is cited as the explanation for

the pautity of female participation and also for the_fact that many of the

women who did participate also dropped out. As for YETP, it is not immedi-

\ atelYapparent why female participation ghould'be considerably higher than

vales. The variety of diverse projects and the multiple number of spons'ors

would,Ake it seem unlikely that it was done by design. The explanation may

be that the school sysogms are deeply involved in YETP operations. Women,

are'likely to be more evenly represented with men in schools 'than. perhaps,

in'anrother societal institution. This factor may contribute to the phenomenon but it does not completely explain the pattern., Another plausible

explanation is that several large YETP ventures involve training and work

experience sites in occupations that have been traditionally dominated by

women (e.g., secretarial training programs and job sites with day care facilities, libraries, and hospitals). Also, there has been one large contract

given to community based organization desianed to serve largely women (i.e.,

-the YWCA progjam in El Paso).

As regards age, the YCCIP program have enrolled predominately youths

under age 18. This, is somewhat-surprising due'to the fact that the school

systems were not involved in YCCIP in Albuquerque or the Coastal Bend.Consortium area In El Paso, however, the school system administered a substantial portion of the YCCIP grant in FY 1978. YETP, on the other hand,

,,has hada fairly equal. representation of youths under 18 and youths over 18

in both Albuquerque'andotin the Coastal Bend area. Again, however, El Paso

is clearly the exception with 91 pertent of its YETP youths being under 18.

. Part of the explanation is the fact that two school systems had large YETP

programs, The other is that the YMCA program (designed as a drop-oUt'prevention program) and the YWCA program (counseling and work experiences) both

focused on high school aged youth.

I

Th 111
3 TABLE 1. Participant Characteristics of Enrollees in YCCIP

and. YETP of Three Southwestern Prime Sponsorg,

Total First Year Through September 30, 1978

PRIME SPONSORS

Characteristic Albuquerque-Bernaiillo

City, New Mexico

. Coastal Bend-Manpower

Contortium, Texas

El Paso and El Paso

County, Texas

YCCIP i YETP YCCIP * I YETP YCCIP I YETP Total ! % total 1 % Totil 1 % !Total I % Total ' % ;Total %

, 1 , Total 91 100 472 ; 100 71 100 , 897 100 136 100 ' 605 190

t Sex: Male 75. 82 195 Al 69 87 4 343 38 129 95 253 43

Female 16 18 277 59 i0 13 , 554 62 7 '5 ' 347 ',57 Age: Undei. 18 yrs. 66'73 251 53 49 62 483 54 106 7' 548 91

18 and over 25 27 221 47 30 38 414 46 30 22 67 9

1 ' Ethnic Group: /..; Anglo 4' 4 1 .2 5 6 63 7 2 1.5' 5 1 Hispanic 78 86 271 57 73 92 665 74 132 97 , 555 92

Black 4 , 4 22 5 f 1 165 18 2 1.5 17 3

Indian 5, 6 13 3 0 0 0 00010.2

q$ Other 0' 0 O. 0 0"0- 0 0 0, 0 10 2 Economically: , , "Disadvantaged if 89 98 357'76 47 59 830 93 114 84 511 84

AFDC Family 48:55 48 0 10 13- 250 28 35 26 164'27

',. Educ tion Level:' -- i . H.S. .Student 65 71 186 40 36 46 475 53 127 93 ' 429 71

H.S. Dropout 12 13 53 11 35 44 " 254 28 -. 0 0 54 9 *, H.S. Graduate ., 14 15 233 49 8 10 168 19 9 7 122 20

Labor Market Status:

Unemployed 9 10 107 23 1 1 .273 30 0 0 17i 3

Underemployed 1 1 39 8 `' 54 68 8 1 2 1 36 39

Other

,.. 81 89 326 69 24 31 616 69 134 99 352,58

Miscellaneous:

. p $

Offender '20 22 20 4 0 0 8 .8 0 0 9 2

i Handicapped 3 3 3 1 0 0 3 .3 0 0 5 1 C

112
-4

Clearly most of the participants are from economically disadvantaged

familiet: A fewer,number, but still significantly high given the restrictive welfare programS in'botft of these s,tates, were sfrom families receiving

Aid for Families with Dependant Children (AFDC).

In YCIPP, students currently enroll in high school are the largest

single group of particip.ants, in all threelprime Sponsor areas. In YETP

high school students represent the majority in. the Coastal Be)nd area and in

El Paso. But in Albuquerque, high school graduates were the dominat group.

This exception reflects the,focus of the prime sponsor's programs on skill

training at its skills center or in direct.,p1acement with private training

establishments. It al so reflects the city ,internship program for post,

secondary level youth (which will not be refunded during the second year of

YEDPA)

As for the labor market status of participants, the vast majority of

those in both YCC1P and YETP in all three areas were not unemployed. With

_ the exception of.the YCCIP participants in the Coastal Bend area, most

either. Hence, it is strongly suggestiv that most Ywere

not underemployed tOPA

1 participants in these, areas are coning from outside the officially defined

% labor force. Hence, it would seem that YEDPA is an importan factor in the

provision of employment opportunities for youth but it is not very significant in its impact.upon local youth unemployment problems.

sr.

V

113

Nta
5

Planning

The topic Of planning is a sensitive topic with the prime sponsors

under study. YEDPA has served as an example of everything that is wrong

`_with the prevailing employment and training system. It is not that YEDPA

is,worse than othersi it is just thaf it contributes to the existing central problem. Namely, there is no over411 planning at the national level

with respect to the policy objectives andprogramptelationships. As ,a

result it is impossible to plan at the local levels if the use'bf the term

. "planning" has any functional content. Essentially the role of the prjme

sponsor ihas,become one of implementation of programs despite the fact that

all of the prime sponsors indicated a strong preference to do,planning;but

it is impossible given the prevailing institutional constraints.

To dd' meaningful planning at the local level, it is necessary to know

the regulatory requirements and the amqunt of dollars associated with each

program. Both were unknown a's YEDPA ended its first 3/ear and preparations

were made for the second year. In addition to the fact that there were

other new programs to prepdre for during the Laming yeaL, the fact that the

entire CETA system was up for renewal (the final bill did not clear the

Congress until Oct. 15, 1973) made planning for fiscal year 1979 "more difficult than in other years.." As a result, neither the funding levels nor

the legislation were known prior to the begihning of the fircal,year. To

./malie matters worse, the late passage of the CETA renewal meant that there

wa Iv time to pos a new appropriation bill. As a result, it may not be

un i) Spring of 1979 before it actually passes. The absurdity of the situat n was summarized by one manpower planner,as follows:

We were asked to prepare our YCCIP and YETP plans for

/'FY 1979 based on a 93 percent level of the 1978 base. This

was difficult to .1) because the delays associated with

/' implementing both of the'priltrams during 1978 caused both

to ke."7 month programs" run at 100% level. Thus, if 93%

is the planning maximum for the-year, we will still have

to cut back even. more.

The difficulty, of course, is that it is impossible to tell sub-contractors

how much money-will actually be available for program operations. The

effect, it appears, is especially severe for YCCIP. Since it contains

su5stantially fewer dollars thanbdoes YETO, YCCIP is seen to have been a

casualt34 'of the planning uncertkinties. New YCCIP projects in the Coastal

Bend Consortium have been postponed until after January 1, 1979. In El

Paso, the YCCIP program is run entirely by the local school system. It terminated

all of its YCCIP participants on August 1, 1978 and did-not enroll any new

participants until mid-October 1973. In Albuquerque, which also has a

single YCCIP sub-contractor, the contract was renewed but the level of

Operations wa reduced from the previous year.

There is ittle indication' that there has, been any significant local

planning for the'second year of YEDPA. The situation simply does not permit.it to occur. As one planner commented, "all we can do at the local

level is cope with the situation and try to write decent applications." He

added, "the funding and legislative uncertainties this year mean that most

114
fl I 6

of our energies this year 're going tz:be'devoted to writing modifications

to all existing contracts." He reiterated the fundamental local problem

by saying:

The Department orLabor (DOL) undoubtedly has its own

pressures,. But they simply do not understand the political

pressures' that prime sponsors are ainr We must get approval of everything we do. The local political structures do not

understand the waY'lm which DOL'Oerates and DOL does not understandthat we cannot act without obtaining local approval from

elected officials. They want tomnow every detail before they

give approval. Unfortunately, we can only tell them things

based upon a long list of confusing contingencies. The regional

DOL office,is concerned about the planning dilemma facing the

prime Sponsors but they have resigned themselves to, the fact

that it is a hopeless situation. a Relatedly, the respective advisory councils to each prime sponsor have

conditioned themselves now to acting onlyon "a short range basis". Specifically the primersponsdrs indicated that their advisory councils showed "no

great concern for YEDPA" relative to their other program and policy concerns . in making preparation for FY 1979. One prime sponsor synthesized the advisory council's interest in YEDPA as "being minor after the initial start-up

problems were overcome.' He reported that "there has not been any local

controversy over the youth.proams so that the advisory council has been$

looking at other thing's this past year--most particularly at PSE."

4 All of the primes continued to report that there has been almost no . participation by the youth members of the youth advis'ory councils as required

under YEDPA.

The prime sponsors also reported that they have received very little

technical assistance from DOL with respect to the youthiorograms. They

eeport specific deficiencies in theiiunderstandi ngof the knowledge development expectations' and the entire suBrect of ,academic credit for work experience. The latter point in Texas centers upon whether the academic credit

that is being made available under YCCIP (in El Paso) and YETP (in El Paso

4nd in 'the Coastal Bend area).is awarded for work experience or for attendance at the mandatory school classes. One_ official said, "there is apparently 111` no one in Texas who can answer that question." The answer is important since

it involves not only an asse:i.ment of`the impact of the youth program but it

also restricts any understanding as to whether or not a precedent is being

,set for other endeavors not associated with YEDPA.,

IV. Data Gathering V

There are few signs that any of the prime sponsors under review have

sought to gather any data about YEDPA programs above those required by DOL.

One prime sponsor does require'monthly reports from its sub-contractors

even though quarterly reporting is all that Is actually required. The subcontractors are unaware that the requirement is locally imposed but there

are no reported dissatisfactions. The monthly reports do enable the prime

sponsoroto monitor performance more effectively.

F
7 There does not appear to be any data being collected about actual

performance Of Programs. Rather, the data is totally of an operational

nature. .

V. Evaluation

There was sparse indication that any deta'iled evaluation was "made of

program operations uuring the first year as a criteria for 're-funding

during the second year. Ai will be shown later, most oroaram operators

during the firit year who sought re-funding for the second year were

successful in their applications. The criteria for awards, where there

was competition, was based largely up9n a comparison of the propbsals witlh

other applicants rather than a review of past performanck In one case,

a program to develop on-the-job training positions in thenocal community

was totally, unsuccessful. Nonetheless, ft was refunded for a second year

YETP project to attemtp to do the same thing.

8 In defense of the prime sponsors, it must be said_that there simply, ls

no time to do evaluation prior to the time that decisions.must be maple for

second year funding. Monitoring is done regularly by the prime sponsors . but evaluation is not. One prime sponsor did indicate an intention t'o devote

attention to evaluation of YEDPA during the second year (FY 1979) but candidly stated "there has simply not been any time this year for such activities,"

-------

. Decisions concerning refunding fo the second year have been made more

on the basis of "assumptions drawn om personal impressions than from

formal evaluations." The general c nclusions of these assumptions have been

that there should be a reduction of efforts to develop on-the-job training

(OJT), slots for youth and ,internships for youth coupled with an expansion

of eqorts to provide skill training and to conduct specific assessment of

the needs of individual youths.

4VI. Summer PiTqram

4 For the most part, the large reservoir of needy youth in all three areas

meant that their were no problems finding sufficient participants for all , summer youth- programs. In two are6s, YCCIP and YETP were kept separate from

summersnrollments under the existing CETA Title I and the Suilimer Program

for Economically Disadvantaged Youth (y0EDY) efforts. In Albuquerque and El

Paso; the participants in YEDPA were kept separate from those in SPEDY. In the Coastal Bend,.. the programs run by the school system were blended together.

In the Coastal end program, it had been intended to expend all of the

YETP funds received the school district in the first six months 'of 1 78

and then to tronsitidn the participants into SPEDY positions for the su er. But due to the very late start of YETP, 'there was considerable overlap Into

the summer. The combinatioroaf available SPEDY and YETP funds meant that

total summer enrollments were expanded considerably over the .planned level.

,
I

1 8

-,.. As the YETP funds were depleted, the participants 'were

. transferred to

SPEDY or Title I slots. There were some administrative difficuties due

to, the different income eligibility criteria that-apply to SPEDY and to

YEP but "th9 administrative tangle was overcome." There was, however,

a trong recommendation from school officials that these income criteria

b standardized.'

The types of jobs during the summer were uniformly the same as those

_provided during the school year. The difference being, of course, that

the emphasis was on part-time jobs during the schoolyear but full-time

employment duriQg the summer. There were no apparent differendes in wage

rates. The federal minimum wage remained the stand 1°d for virtually every -k

one except those participants with some supervisory duties over other youths.

There were some minor problems that occured in the localities in which

SPEDY, YETP, and YCCIP.co-existed during the summer months. In.a few instances;,youths tried to get two jobs.' More Importantly, there was some

preferential shifting by youths away from YEDPA jobs to SPEDY jobs: The

reason was that SPEDY. jobs contained some of the more attractive (for noneconomic economic reasons). jobs. For i,nstancei in El Paso the SPEDY program had a ] number of jobs tn recreational occupations (e.g., life guards, supervising'

bAsketbe-11 programs, etc.). _Since the pay was the same, SPEDY jobs seemed

to be an easier and a more socially enjoyable way of working during the

summer. YEDPA jobs in the summer were much the same in their-job requirements as during the school year. These.efforts to shift programs, however,

were the exception.,

In Albuquerque, the presence of the entitlement programli.e., of YIEPP)

did cause fewer 16 and 17 year old youths to be available for-SPEDY compared

to °previous years. Accordingly, it also meant that SPEDY was confronted with

more 14 and 15-.year old youths than in earlier years'. This development, was

seen as being'a positive sign as it enabled "more youth'thafl ever to be, "

served."-

1

None of the prime sponsors reported any indication of labor shortages

in youth-dominated occupations during the summer months. All indicated

that the vast surpluses of youths in their .communities overshadowed,

presence of sizeably SPED? and YEDPA programs There were no reports of

employers,,who complSined about'shortager-V-youthful job seekers although

there were some coOlaints about shortages of youths'with job skills. These

complaints, however, were considered to be routine and unrelated to 40

the YEDPA presence. Also the prime sponsors are quick to indicate that their

youth programs are largely reserved for economically disadvantagid youth!

They point out That "there are still plenty of non-economically disidvantaged

youth around."

D
, VII. Special Issues

-)

Serving thelandicapped: . It was noted by one prime sponsor that all programs under CETA for youth are poorly suited for meeting the needs of

emotionally disturbed and handicapped youth. To serve thesO youths, a high

cost trainee program is needed. But CETA stresses low costarod a high

volume of participants. ,Hence, there Ras not. been much participation of,

these youths in YEDPA.

---.....

. Linkages with other tinstitutions: The "forced" relationship required under

YETP between the prime sponsors and the 'ocal school'systems hag surfaced

. several differences in philosophyv. One is that the school officials see

the need for linkages with other youth agencies in the community as a way

of jointly providing services to youth. The prime'spbriSor (reflecting" DOL

preferencesi stresses the availability of jobs as the enticement for joint

participation. The school officials stress the fact that-many youths have

Serious social problems--broken homes, alcoholism probleMs (of parents

and sometimes of youth themselves); drug probleos, child abuse, child-

.

, neglect, and'sometimel incest. Tlus, they stress the services that are

needed from other community institutions--such as halilqay houses, welfare

case workers, juvenile court personnel, and the preparation of school .-

* drop-but list's. School officials stress the outreach dimensions that are

related to efforts to bring youths back to school,as-the, crucial feture

and they tenet() down play the importance of job Oicement peruse:

e e The Philosophy of Youth Programs: As indicated in the pre edjngparagraoh,

school officials have a differenli perceptiN.of the needs you6 than .-Jo

most Of the prime sponsors who -are fulfilling their responsibdlities in . administering CETA. the local school officials in .all three prime sponsor, .- areas have had extensive experience with Title rand SPEDY programs for , youth prior to the advent of YEDPA. Some of their concerns,therefort, transcend

YEDPA,itself and reflect experlences with all youth'programs under CUR.

The, schools perceive that the thrust of CETA programs is_for jo6 lacement,

e

(i.e., unsubsidized employment). The schools in general feel th t every,

effort should be made to keep students in school. Jobs for yout', they . feel, should be a means to an end, (i,e., completion of atqeast a high

school diploma), and not an end goal itself. The schc4s "feel'that pressure

is increasing for job placerient and for reduction of placement costs, As . the dollars have increased for youth,' (especially with- the of.YEDFA)

the more at odds thd school systems have become with the goals of CETA for,

youth. The school officials see the answer to the problem of-Serving tHt

economically disadvantaged ycluth as bringing them back to classrooms rathar

than trying to get them immediate employment. It should be noted that these

school officials do,not necessarily believe that a traditional school setting

is needed. Rather,'they also mean night classes; alternftive schools and

schools for.young mothers. They argue that if youths drop out of school, it

is far more cosf'ty. to reach and to serge them than if they are able to

_receive quality preparation in school, graduate and thenbe placed into . permanent jobs. There is,a clear perception that many of the jcibs-avairable under YEDPA are dead-end jobs. The preferences of Schbol officials in

rank order are: (l), continue education; (2) continue training; and (3) jobplacement. Towthe degree that YEDPA allows youth to continue theirteduca,-

tion, it 4s seen as an asset; to the dearee that it str,ssestrAAsition,t9 -.

... jobs it is seen as being counterproductive. . a 118
/'

10

Labor Market Impact: None of the prime sponsors reported',Any complaints

from employers about labor shortages for the types of labor pools that

would normally. be populated by YEDPA participants. It is likely, however,.

that YEDPA has served to increase employment opportunities for youth who

would not normally be in the labor market rather than to perceptibly .re: duce the number of youths who were already in the labor market. Table 1 clearly shows that most YEDPA participantsin all three prime soonsorareas

were not in the labor force prior to their participation in YEDPA.

Job Development and Placement: Few of the project sponsdrs (ire., community based organizations, schools, government agencies, or prime sponsors)

reported anpdifficulty developing job slots'for YEDPA participants. There

were,:howeverq a few exceptions that are instruc dive to policy development.

4

. Arne of these was associated with fob development in the rural counties

forYETP participants in the Coastal Bend area. The Corpus Christi Independent School District is also resoonsible,for all of th' YETP progrims in tag . adjacent twelve countyareas. It has had nodifficulty developing jobs in

the city but the rural areas have presented problems, Due to the massive

land area that comprises these rural counties (over 11,500 square miles)

that are sparsely pop fated in widely scattered areas, there are.few-opportunitio fbr publicoplon-profit jobs. The simultaneous pressure to increase .

enrollments in public service employment (PSE) under Title VI during 1973

did lead to a "drying up" of job sl,ots.. Prior to the Title.VI build-up,

slots.could beyfound if.the,gffortevas.puI fofth. But afterwards, it was_

far more difficult. ,It has taken eiTemslve effort "to squeeze, in our kids'.

Vapnt jobs had all bUt disapp.O.red. The faq that this same primesnofwf

area has been.selected to become one of the demonstration oject areas for

the Employment Opoortuni ty'Program(i .e., welfare refor,31.4 V979.treans that

an additional 3,2'00 PSE slots are going to be required. T 's.does not auger

well for YETP in re next year in these rural counties.

A second problem has also occurred in these same Aral c unties that

involved both YETP and YCCIP. Namely, the local government ag_ cies iri

-these rural and.mostly poor counties do not'have spar;Tunds fo equipment

and Supplies that are often needed to develop a new job slot. YCCI in

particularLis'a laborintensiVe PrograM. But as one spokesfran said, "yoU

don't need extra workers in rural areas if you can't use well the ones you

,already have." The limits-on available funds for auxiliary materials is

seen as a real.barrjer tb expansion of such endeavors .for rural youth.

. I kthird problem area ,has teen with Oh-the-job training for youth: All

of the prime sponsors included OJT for youth in their first year's operations. None found these efforts to be fruitful. ,In the Coastal Bend case,

theAmerican G.I. Forum, a community based organization in the Chicano community was only Able to fill 28 of 60 OJT slots for youth. They encountered

strong employer resistance. When youth are employed in certain occupations,

insurance costs increase. Also, the group they were trying to place were.

by definition ,-out -of- school youths. This group, it was found, were very

unstable im their work'habits and aspirations. Employers likewise showed

little interest in youths who had Little interest in tie jobs they were

Offered. In Albuquerque the problems stemTed,froM the fact that the vast

119
0

majority of the business enterprises are small in size. Most of these small ----. bUsinesses did not want to biome involved with the federatgovernment in

general or with CETA programs in particular. About half;Of its OJT's slots

'were wer unfilled during the first year.. In Albuquerque, tneref6re, the plan is

to reduce OJT positions to zero in the second year. The Coastal Bend Consortium,, however, did refund the G.I. Forum program in We that the second . year will be more productive. In El Paso, the El Pas¢ Central YMCA--which

was new to the Manpower field--set up some OJT slot that were coupled

With classroom instruction. The prime sponsor found, however, that the

/

.. positions.were)ft undesirable occupations (e.g., sa)ad makers, waitresses,

,etc.) and the YMCA found that the-cost of OJT was far more expensive than ite

had planned. Hence, the OJT slots were all transferred to other activities.

. The El Paso prime sponsor had feared that this would happen. 14 does not

believe it is a good idea for sub-contractors to get into OJT because it is

"too complicated for most of them."

_

,!!' t ''`N

''' A fourth deVelopment of interest was with the idea of internships for

youth with the'Albuquerque city government. The staff of the prime sponsor

was not in favor ci'this idea but the advisory council was and recommended

z funding for the first year. The experience, of the, program proved to be . supportive of the fears of the staff. 'Namely, most of the internships (which'

were for post - secondary. school level youth) went to "emdticipated youths =' * That is, they went' to youths who no longer relied upon their parents for

income support butwhose parents were not etwomically'disadvantaged

backgrounds. They were largely youths who Made up sifigle person households.

,Although these youths didifi11 a void (i.e., city officials claimed that

the work would not be dohe without them), the Youth Council to the prime

sponsor decided,that,since most of these'youths were going to community

colleges-or thistate university, there were many other more needy yo4ths

to serve in the community. Hence, it was recommended and it was decided that

the venture not be refunded during FY 1979:

*. /

The Role of Community Based Organizations; Although all three prithe sponsors

were very critical of the mandated inclusion of CBO's when YEDPA began, it is

clear that most-of this reluctance had vanished by the end of the first year

The greatest chantrc.occurred in Albuquerque which has had a completely changed

perspective. The Youth Semvices Office which had been created by the prime

sponsor to coordinate 'all services for out-of-school yduth in the community

was funded by YETP and ,,,qs initially set up to be run by the prime sponsor

itself. But with the coming of the second year, it was decided to turn over

the entire program to a local CBO. It was awarded to the local OIC in

. Albuquerque. The OIC had hSd.a long history of a client orientation (rather

than an agency orientation). wnich was attractive to the prime sponsor. The

OIC, however, had only limited prior'experience with youth. None4eless, it

was awarded the 0.ogram. In part the decisibn to delegate the job to OIC

wqs part of major change in philo'sophy by the Albuquerque prime sponsor. Over

the summer of 1978, there was a director change. In contrast to the past,

the new direc.tor believes that the prime sponsor should assume largely an

administrative role concerned with planning and monitoring. As a result, the

attitude toward CBO involvement has become decidedly more positive.

On' administrative problem associated with the CBQ involvement in YEDPA

is that it has made it difficult for the prime sponsors to keep track of .

12U
12

expenditure levels. All of the prime sponsors had carry-over funds of money

not spent the first year. Part of the reason was that the myhad of CBO's

in YEOPA as well as in other CETA programs has increased the difficulty of

keeping track of the actual expenditures by,eath of them.

a'

Female Participation: Earlier in the report it was noted that there was a

paucity of women participants in the YCCIP programs in'all three prime

sponsor areas. All of the YCCIP projects in all three localities have been

associated.with labor intensive, out -.of- doors, and physical type work in construction, maintenance,.or repair work. No special efforts'have been made to

accommodate women. 'As a result, either women have elected not to participate

or have been pre-screened out from consideration. Where women, have participated, they have sustained a high drop7out rate, In the case of.the more

varied array of opportunities afforded by the YETP endeavors, women have had

a higher partici tiOn rate'. Yet several issues have arisen that serve to . indicate the un1ueriess of youth labor markets from adult labor markets.

For instance, one sponsor indicated that there had been some problems in the

placement of f,emale:youths into OJT-slats due to-some "lecherous employers"

who made sexual aNances. The official stated that "this is a very serious

Issue for a local prime spodsor to handle -- especially if the girl is still'

living at,home with her father." He added that "this type of an issue is a.

real problem that we must take into consideration even though upper level

program administrators don't consider it to be a signifitant issue." Another

unexpected problem has arisen 'when some boy friends have objected to *their

girl friends going to work sites where there are young men. Several were

given ultimatums to choose between "the;r honey or their job." In one case,

a boy friend purposely spilled a milkshake all over his girl friend just before she was to go to work which forced her not to show up that day. These

incidents, although obviously isolated, do serve to remind policy-makers of

some. of the unique issues that affect policy initiatives for youths.

N121
1.3 >

. 4 VIII. Funding Decisions for the Second Year

In a sense, all of the plans for the second year of YEDPA are

tentative: The uncertainty of the reauthorization of the enabling . , legislation as well as the continued uncertainity of the- funding levels- _ _ _ of the subsequentTETA Amendments of 1978 mean that no prime sponur

could plan in adesirable manner for the second year of YEDPA. All of the

prime sponsors Were told to plan on the basisrof receipt of 93% oftheir

previous year's- allocation. The prime sponsors were, however, allowed

to carry-over any unexpended funds for the first year to the-second and

to include the carry over in their-program renewal process.. 'Fdr YCCIP,

the funding levels for FY 1979 for all three prime s'ponsors are' considerably below the levels for the first year. For YETP, the funding

levAs are ale lower for the Coastal Bend Consortium. and For- -J1 Paso

in the second year than the first. In Albuquerque, however, Harrycher" funds were sufficient to allow for an increase in YET?' fu ing for

1

the second year. On balance, however, it would appear that YEDP -programs activity will be reduced in all three localities for the Second

year to tHe fir1t 'year's operational levels.

A, YCCIP Decisions .

-e Table 2 presents a summary of the plans or YCCIF',by the respectiJe

prime sponsor for FY 1979. A brief d eription of the oicisions'of each

prime sponsor is as follows.

Albuquerque-aernalillo County, N.M. The prime sponsor issued a requeSt

'for proposals (RFPs-) for the second year operation of YCCIP. In response

it received three proposals. The decision was made to give the entire

available sum to one applicant, Youth Development, Inc. (YDI). YDI is a

community based organization.' It was also sole sponsor of all.YCCIP

activities during the first year. Hence, the decision was in reality arel%

funding decision based upon satisfactory first year performance. YDI did

plan to expand its labor intensive work projects into such areas a construction of a solar green house, renovation of a county center for

retarded berso9s; and a co-operative venture with the local mason's unions

to renew a jogging trail a city park..

Coastal Bend Manpower Consortium, Tx. The Consortium plans to issue RFP's

after January 1, 1979 for its new YCCLP funds. Hence, there will be no

YCCIP Activity until after that date. ."

.El Paso and El Paso County. The prime sponsor requested RFP's for its.

YCCIP funds. Three proposals were received.. All three were approved,

although at reduced funding levels than thogerequested. One went to the

El Paso Independent School District-(EPISD) which also received a similar

contract during-thPfi t year. The se and contract award went to Project

I

Bravo, a local C80,4 a prog m for ult-of;.ichool youth doing weatherization work. The third was t he Ysle Independent School District (YISD)

for a work experience pr am for in-school youth to refurbish school

desks. After receiving the award, however, YISD suddenly reversed itself

and withdrew its proposal. Ostensibly the reason was that the.. school

IA

`1 2 2
12:3

TABLE 2. Summary of Allocation of Funds for the YCCIP Pr lions of YEDA

in AlhuquercieerElPaso4-.and the Coastal Bend Manpdwer Consortium, %.

Fiscal Year 1979

I

Prime Sponsor Total Amount of

Funds Allcoated

Recipients of Funds Total Amount Of

Funds Received

Estimated number of

Persons to be served

AlbuqUerque NM,

and Bernalillo

County NM

Coastal Bencl Manpower

Consortium, TX

(City of Corpus

Christi and 12

counties)'

El Paso, IX

and County of

El Paso, TX

$154,000

$117,000

$167,350

Youth Development $154,000

Inc.

(no decisions to be

made until after

Japuary 1979)

El Paso Adependent

' School Eistrict

Projece Bravo

Unallocated*

$117,000

'N$ 96,25.1

41,383

29,716

to be determined

35 to be determined

*See Text

124
15

district was unable to obtain the funds from other sources to cover the

costs of materials. There are, however, other considerations concerning

administrative personalities and philosophy about federal funds that may

also be involved in the decision. As a result, the prime sponsor was

forced to start the RFP process over again. As of mid-October 1978,

therefore, YCCIP was underfunded.

B. YETP Decisions t Table 3 presents a summary of the YETP decision for FY 1979. A brief

discussion of each of the prime sponsor decisions is as follows:

41-s Albuquerque--Bernalillo County, N.M. As was the case in the previous year,

Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) will receive the stipulated 22 percent of

YETP Funds as the local educational agency (LEA). It plans to continue its

successful program with local hospitality industry.- During the preceeding

year all 43 oungsters who completed the program during the academic year

were offered Tull-time employment in the summer. During the forthcoming

year, it is intended that the program will be expanded.to serve 60 persons

(30 each semester). An effort is being made to develop additional job

slots in businesses related to tourism (e.g., travel agencies, chamber

of commerce, museums, etc.). It is also planned to spin-off a separate

program in the day care industry. The fact that the school year begins

in late August but the refunding and staffing decision could not be done

until after October 1 meant that the program could not begin until midOctober. The inability to synchronize school years and CETA years remains

as difficult a problem this year as last.

cIn addition to the LEA allotment, the prime sponsor elected to continue to retain a substantial portion of YETP funds to administer itself.

This year, however, the mix of programs will be changed pas a result of

earlier experiences. OJT will be phased out entirely; skill training slots

at the Skill Center will be increased; and a G.E.D. program will be added.'

Also, based partly on the first year's experience, the prime sponsor has

decided to buy into'an occupational assessment progrbi that wiliPbe used

to test abilities and interests of all CETA participants.' It is hoped.

that the testing services will enable the-Youth Services Office to determine how best to serve the youths it encounters.

The prime sponsor decided for the'second year of YEDPA that it would

delegate the operation of the Youth Services Office which it had established

and adm;.:stered during the first year. The youth office is designed to

serve all youth in the city who are out-of-school,. It seeks to meet the

specific needs of the youth it encounters. To do this in a more effective

manner, the aforementioned testing service will be added dux.ing the coming

year. The prime sponsor found during the firSt year that it did not have

the capacity to run the youth office itself. This fact, together with the

presence of a new director of the prime sponsor who believes that more

activities should be subcontracted out,-led to a decision to request RFP's

for the operation of the youth office. Five RFP's were received. The

award was given to the OIC-Mid-Rio Grande, a local C60, to operate. Although it has had experience with adult programs in the manpower area, the

operation of the youth office will be its first experience with youth

programs.

1 9:7
126

TABLE 3. Summary of Allocation of Funds for the YETP Provision of YEDA in Albuquerque,

El Paso, and the Coastal Bend Consortium, Fiscal Year 1979 ( as of October, 1978).

Prime Sponsor

Total Amount of

Funds Allocated

Total Amount of

Recipient of Funds Funds Received

Estimated Number

of Participants

Albuquerque and

Bernalillo County,

New Mexico

Coastal Bend Manpower , Consortium (City of

Corpus Christi and 12

counties)

El Paso, Texas and

El Paso County, Texas

$900,000

$662,864

$708,000

Albuquerque Public Schools (LEA)

Program to be run by prime sponsors:

a) skill training at skill center

b) C.E.D. program

c) Individual referrals to privatelraining

facilities

d) Supportive services

e) Occupational assessment service for

youths who use Youth ServicessOffice (i.e.,)

Comprehensive Occupational Assessment Testing Servipe)

OIC-Mid-Rio,Grande to run Youth Services

Office for all out of school'yOuth and

ifrect_platemeats

. Carpus Christi Independent School District

American G.I. Forum Veterans Outreach Program

LULAC Educational Services Center

Administration of Program

El Paso IndepenVent School District

El Paso Community College

El Paso YWCA

(Project Bravo ' 10'

Valeta Independent School District'

$165,000

715,000

120,000

$464,206

84,812

83,958

29,888

$287,826

99,041

87,558

147,146

95

(30 a semester)

102

- 65

10

80

Yet to be determined

Yet to be determined

Yet to be determined

Yet to be determined

128

40

100

34

75 Fabens Independent School District

Yet to be allocated

37,546

156)859

38

427
CV'

.17

The Coa tal Bend Manpower Consortium. The Consortium plans to request new

RFP'-s- --f YETP but;-due-to all of= the uncertainties cverCETA re-authorization a d funding levels, it has temporarily decided to stay with the Same

sub- ntractors used in of the first year.. In early 1979, a decision

be made as to how to proceed. Hence, the Corpus Christi Independent

5chool District (CCISD) will again receive over two-thirds o4the YETP

funds. ,CCISD, however, has the responsibility of serving both the city

and the twelve rural counties that comprise the consortium. LULAC educational services continue in support services and coun'seling activities

with CCISD in the rural areas. The GI FortiMNwill cohti*e its effort to

make OJT for youth a viable concept.

El Paso and El Paso County, Texas. The prime sponsor requested and received 11 proposals to its RFP. Four of these were funded; the other

'seven were rejected on techntal grounds. A second RFP was issued and 9

proposals were received. Of these 3 were approved (two were from one

ageny). Hence, a third RFP round was- pending as of mid-October 1978.

The El Paso Independent School District(EPISD) received almost 40

percent of the total funds available for a comprehensive program of work'

experience and training that provides academic credits. The El Paso

Commuhity College plans to offer two special courses in which'participants

will receive wages for their participation, One Class will be in secretarial training and the other in data processing. The YWCA plans to set

up an innovative training program for day-care occupations at the local

educational center for school-aged parents. Project Bravo, a CBO, plans

to operate a work experienCe program for in-school youth. The Ysleta

Independect School District re a renewal of its in-school work

experience\program (j.e., teacher aids) for a second year. The Fabens

Independent School District (F.I.S.D.) received approval of its request for

an in- school program that will be tied tiiit's existing distribOtive education program. Work experience will be provided as clerical work, teacher

aids, or grounds mainteaSnce. The mork experience will be lipked to

existing vocational education classes (funded outside of CETK) and academic

credit will be ftovided for the work experience. (The F.I.S.D. proposal

was actually two separate proposalsthat were ultimately combined into one

program).

rx. Concluding Observations

DUring its first fiscal year, YEDPA was operational for only about

seven months (some projects for even less time) in. the three prime sponsors

under review. Although there was little time to prepare for it, -the three

prime sponsors 4id respond as rapidly as was possible given their institu-:

tional constraints. During most of the-first year, the attention of the

prime. sponsors was constantly diverted away by other priorities, that were

set by the U.S. Depdrtment of Labor at the national level. Hence, most

of the attention of the prime sponsors te-YEDPA was devoted to its launching with little time available to assess or toievaluate its"on-going life.

Planning for the second fiscal year of YEDPA has, likeWise, been minimal

128
oP 18

due to the uncertainties over legislative re- authorization and funding

ost_instancesthe_program_composition'of the first'year

will be replicated during the second year. As it now stands, however,

the operational level of YEDPA during the second year will be less than

during the first. More attention, however, is anticipated by the-prime.

sponsors to the crucial issues of evaluation and monitoring than was

possible during the first year. Hence, the quantitative loss in numbers

of participants froM tRF levels of the first year may be partially offset by qualitative improvements in project content during the second year.

It is still too early at this point'to tell.

It does seem to be the case that YEDPA expanded employment opportunities significantly in these three communities for youths who are from_

economically disadvantaged baCkgrounds and who are from nationally designated racial and ethnic minorities. Most of the participants, however,

seem to be from "out of the labor force" as it is officially defined or were

underemployed in the jobs they previously held. Few were actually'unemployed. This Means that YEDPA has helped considerably in increasing

employment and income levels for these participants but its actual impact

on local youth unemployment problems remains in doubt. On the other hand,

the presence of the program may have. played a preventative role of affording employment opportunities to youths whO would have eventually added

to local youth unemployment problems if it had _not been there. The fact,

howevdr, that so much of the thrust of YEDPA is toward keeping youths in

school makes it virtually impossible to assess the significance of this

-preventative role in any substantive way..

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 themselvgs

in CETA in a year round manner that was largely Limited before to a summer

time commitment. Also the schools have used,YEDPAfas a lever to gain

academic credit for work experience and to link Ort-time jobs during the

school years to full time jobs in the summer. It also seems that ties

with vocational education are either being forged for the first time or

beingistrengthened in a manner that did not previously exist.

Another first year institutional adjustment of YEDPA has been to enable many community based and neighborhood based organization to become

involved in youth issues. For many, it is their first involvement. For

others, it has allowed them to expand and to compliment on-going activities.

YEDPA experience to date has contributed to an understanding of

the mplexity of policy intervention in the labor market. For too long

the.t deAcy of

rprop

polt13,:i initiatives for youths have tended to be replications oadult prop s. YEDPA has seemed So indicate that the youth labor

market is unique in both its demand and its supply characteristics. Some

policy thrusts apparently do not work (e.g., OJT); some behavioral influences are more pressing onyOuths than adults (e.g., the influence of parents,

peer groups, and schools); and some well established manpower goals (e.g.,

job placement per se) may be misdirected.
AN EVALUATION AFTER ONE YEAR OF THE YOUTFj EMPLOYMENT AND DEMONSTRATI2N.

PROJECTS ACT OF 197 IN MICHIGAN:

Third Interim Report on Progress in Detroit, the Grand Rapids

Consortium, Kalamazoo County, the Lansirig Consortium,

and the Muskegon Conscirtium

. This: report was prepared by Peter Kobrak of Western

Michigan UniverSity under a grant from the Employment.

and Training Administratidn, U.S. Department of Labor.

The authorship of this study is'truly collegial. The

principal investigator assumes.final responsibility

for the materials presented, but all of the following

coauthors provided valuable data and ideas: Lowell'

Baker, Gus Breymann, Mark Clevey, Dan Hannigan, - Jeffery Johnson, and Robert Straits

Prepared for the National Council on Employment Policy,

Washington, D.C., NcAfember 23, 1978.

130

AI

a
O.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

t

,..

\ 221,

PART ONE: ISSUES OF pAIMARY CONCERN,IN EVALUATING YOUTH EMPLOYMENT.

.LEGISLATIW NATIONALLY .. % , . . . ..... I 1. Youths Served by the Program puri4;tho"First'Year. A . L

Relation of the Youths to the Feder41 Youth Program 4

2. Program Activity During YEDPA's First Year .` 6

3.

, YEDPA Manning andits Relation to Performance 7 The YCCIP Experience

9

The YETP Experience 11 Coping With Uncertainty-andoChapges in YEDPA Planning . . . . 12

.* 4. Planning for Fiscal Yedr 1979 ' + . 15

5. The Quality of Prime Sponsor Data 21

6. Evaluation of 'Couch Proprarlis 22

lidifying Knowledge Development

-- 24

7. he Summer Youth Programs 26

PART TWO: ISSUES OF PRIMARY CONCERN IN EVALUATING YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

LEGISLATION LOCALLY 0 30

1. \The Emergence of New Youth' Employment Programs at the State

Levels: The,Case of Michigan '. ,,,- , 1 31

,

. Youth Employment Programs Available iA9,, Michigan 32

. Michigan Summer Jobs; 1977 A

. r . 33

The Michigan Employment Pq,og'ft

, 35

The Michigan Youth Employment Clearinghouse

0, , 38

The Failure of F4glera. and State Youth Employment Programs

to Coordinate 39 "

Too Little,- Too Late .

. .

. 40

, . , - .. , First Steps in Coordinating Michigan and NatiOnal Youth

Employment Programs 41.

Cooperative Assessment and the guest for an Overal'Manpower

System: The Case of the Muskegon Consortium 41

°Centralizing the "Front-end" of the System 1 ' 42' -Hitching the Middle and End to-the Front of the System. . . . 43

Emulating the Title I System in Title I/I 44

. . Gaining-Manpower Access to the Schools through Sympathetic

Educators . . 45

Cooperative Assessment- -First Step Toward a Title III System. J45

131
0

/ page

0 i

3. Manpower Moves to Develop and Extend Local Educational Agree- t4 ments: The Case of the Lansing Tri-County Regional Manpower

Consortium i 4, .. 46

' Early Lansing Consortium Linkages with Local Educational

Agencies (LEA's) . . . . 46

, .

Ac ' ... New Youth Programming Under the Youlh Employment and 0 n5 `' stration Projects Act (YEDPA).of 1977 . , . =1,7

Decentralization of In-school Youth Programs

In-School Youth Program Planning 49

YETP in School Program Implementation: The LEA Agreements. 50

Career Employment Eoperience: Transition Services f50

Work Experience a 52

Academic Credit 55

Program Problems and Prospects for Fiscal Year 1979 56

. ..c 4. --Corporate;"Unidn,- tilUeatiallal,-and Manpower Cooperation in _

Support of Youth Employment and Training Programs: The Case

of the Detroit Metropolitan Area 58

The-Role of the Schools 58

The Role of Business 59

,The Role of labor 60

New Feder Initiatives 'Involving the Private Sector-Gravt*

tate4,to Detroit in the Pilot Stage,

A Promising But as,Yet Untested Confluence of Private Sector.

Interest in Employment and Training 64

,5. Adapting YEDPA to a Centralized Operational System: The,

110 Case of Kalamazoo County .4).... 65

. :. f

.1 (

Early Youth Programming Establishes a Mariagement Pattern...:. 65

..0 The Emergence of YEDPA. 66

'Fine Tuning in Organizational Structure for YEDPA 67

Establishing Linkages to the System 69

The Service Delivery System 72

SOME PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING YEDPA '74

4
The first year of operations ofthe Youth Employment and Demonstration

Projects Act of 1977 (YEDPA) has come to an end with a relatively healthy

but rather ignored baby. It is not so much that its local-faffitly does not

love little YEDPA, but rather that older and bigger-CETA brothers and sisters

es have inathiertently attracted an unwelcome amount of outside scrutiny and

thus...pave required a lot of nurturing. After a tardy and prolonged birth,

YEDPA has settled into a s e to of benign. neglect.

-.4

ART ONE: ISSUES OF PRIMARY CO ERN IN-EVALUTING YOUTH EMPLOYMENT /

LEGISLINON NATIONALLY

. 1. Youths Served by the Program During the First Year.

Five Michigan prime sponsor jursididtions are examined in this study- -

Detroit, the Grand Rapids Consortium, Kalamazoo County, the Lansing Consortium, and the Muskegon Consortium. Enrollment patterns in these areas during

the first year indicate that generally the significant segments identified . in the Fiscal Year 1978 plans were served. The data in.Table i reveals that

in the City of Detroit and the Muskegon Consortium, more than half of the

youths in both the Youth Employment land Training Programs (YETP) and the Youth

Community Conservation and improvements Projects (YCCIP) were nonwhite, while

in the -tither three prime sponsor areas, the proportion of nonwhites considerably exceeded' the proportion of nonwhites within the population of those juris-

% dictions. Of special note in all five jurisdictions is the high number of

economically disadvantaged youths. Although the Department of Labor did not

set a goal for YCCIP youths in that segment, more than half of the partici-

. pants were disadvantaged in all of the areas. In YETP, the requirement was

= 11 that all of the youths come from families with incomes no more than 8t percent

of the BUreau of Labor Statistics' Lower: Living Income Standard Level (LLISL),

or approximately $1,400 more than the income level defined as "economically\

, e 133
.

, --"-.. °

.

. I .

,

..,..

.

. .-- TABLE 1 Summary of Participants' Characteristics in Selected Michigan Prime Sponsors Undqr YCCIP and YETP, Fiscal Year 1978. m

Selected ',No _ m

Michigan

,-jr, 7) -,-, "a 1 r r . .zu g 1 r. S r, t .til 3. .., 13 Prime w °It ,, '-= B-Z; - g in g in E

U d

4 .2

-- - g 0 m 0 .0 0:t .m -0 .m 33 0

Sponsor 1 m 0 .04 cpP cr. r 10.1 1 R. "2 pM- qO° u - .c2 1' § X C 3 i 20 r 1' u, B B "3 66 t::

Mnskegon Consortium

YCCIP

Actual 1 35% 36% ----11-B63% 102% 50% 7% 0

0

62%

95%\N 100%, 95%51P°

0

94%

0

0

, 0

0

0

0

29%

93

41%

7%

3Bx

16

7%

19g

1130%

--125% Planned 44% 31% 69%

36 100%

'174-

78%

36 100% -TV

31%

0 "--Tr 4% YETP

Actual Planned

Actual Id 61%

. 61%

12%

38%

38% '133100%

10145% --72g----gi78% TOO

7

12254%

21%

3324%

-709

100% J17-

87%

35

12% 113

100%

0

1/

12%

25487%

32%

0

132

99%

0

11%

0 01

1% 6145%

8

2% IS

9%

2

1%

. Grand Rapids

Consortium

YCCIP

YETP

-,

Planned

Actual IBRINI

Ifil 46%

'47%

1g10% 100% :5%;-% 14 666% 95% 0 5% 0

86661% 546-

38% 1376- 97%

152

10% 102

7 1158 82%

239

16%

112% 116282.

6.4%,

19

1X

752

53% 58

4%

--24

1% Planned Nil 57% 47%

1381

100% 1063DI. 31823%

----6

501

917%

45%

1303

L 94% ilIl

Kalamazoo

County

YCCIP

tual Itgl 25%

9

75%

12

100%

650%

4 -4N%

54%

6

:,:-

17654%1 82w

541%

62%

43%

41%

k11% RR

MA

1111

91%

95%

0

4%

. 1%

325%

29%

18%

1%

0

115% Planned

39% YETP

Actual Planned 62% 37% 64% 32%

Lansing

Consortium

YCCIP

Actual um 16% 77% 23% 581 55% 11% 78% 101 11% 0 22% 21% 1% Planned

113

6104% 52% TI-- 48%

- 68

60% 9%

.78% 221

111% 821

.70% 5

1%

25

22% 409

39% 84

7% 36

3% YETP

Actual

77172% 208

27% 897

85X

129

12% Planned 1013 114

11% 40540%

City of

Detroit

YCCIP

Actual 227

102%

12253%

10546%

8135%

52%222

85%

094%

20289% on%

6227%

-ITT- 52%

40

17% 9340%

30% 68%

o

227 100%

10%115%

156%

52%

42% Planned irillel

07%

el .11 kill

;,, el 50%

I 49%

52% 0%

2%

63% 17

8%

114%

41% 8% YETP

Actual Planned

:v 94% 45% 23%

15

1% 39430% IL

1% 29 2 4%

. re50% 6% 85% tea"

98% 8%

/ 6

,Ay% 6;%

5% 242% 8%

-

. .

SOURCE: Prime sponsor plans and reports submitted to the U.S. Depar taLakor.

13.4

. 4.

0

v N -
-11 3 -

disadvantaged." But ig terms of actual enrollments, at least three-quarters

of the YETP participants in each of the five jurisdictions fell within the

mere stringent income definition.

All of the prime sponsors worked with a number of youths from welfare.

families. In other cases a 'particular area seemed to attract one or two significant segments more than the others. Nineteen percent of the youths in the

Muskegon ConsortG, for example, were handicapped, while in the Lansing Consortium's YCCIP

A

program, 21 percent were ex-offenders.

For all racial and ethnic groups served in the Detroit and Lansing ConC sortium YETP programs, the number of males avrfemales was almost equally,

distributed, and in the other three jurisdictions the proportion of females

did not drop below 40 percent. In the YCCIP program, however, partly because

of the nature of the jobs, the proportion of females in the Muskegon, Grand

Rapids, apd Lansing Consortia was low. The matter of insufficient female

representation within Kalamazoo's programs evoked some expressions of cont.ern

in its Youth Services Committee, but the matter of what action, if any, should.

be taken to remedy the situation was tabled.

Identification through the standard management information system (MIS)

of action taken on some significant segments was sometimes complicated by

local program design. The Lansing Consortium thus established school dropouts

as a special category, and urged program deliverers to give special consider-

. ation accordingly. The staff believes that they did so, but data on th'number of school dropouts served in the in-school programs is not available.

For the purposes of CETA reporting, "high school dropouts" are defined as

applicants who, at the time of application, are not attending school or have

not received a high school diploma or GED. In-school participants who are

dropouts and return to school, therefore, are normally enrolled in-school at

135
-4

the time of program Applicati6n and consequently not considered dropouts.

.`^ Relat*on of the Youths to the Federal Muth Programs. When two new

federal youth programs, YETP and YCCIP, are added to a refurbished summer

-youth program (Summer Program for Economically Disadvantaged Youths)'andk'

other regular programs operated by the priMe sponsors, there is always the

danger that participants will begin shopping among programs looking for the

most lucrative training'wage or the easiest way to earn i dollar. Interviews

with prime sponsor stafJfers and program operators in these five jurisdictions,

however, did not reveal a single apparent case of this kind. Operators are

particularly leery of such a possibility, because it would affect their enrollment 'patterns and program design. But they expressed the view that such

shifts are not occurring partly because all of the programs, with the occasional exception of YCCIP, provide the same minimumrwage and stipend condi-

-. filtions and because through increasingly tight intake procedures, mo i of them

felt that they were able to control such problems. Indeed; they seemed able

im effect to steer the youths gen rally in the direction that they, as educa-- )e

1

.

. rs, deemed'appropriate--usually on the basis of career plans that they had

eveloped in conjunction with the youths. These officials uniformly point

to the wage level as the Critical motivating factor in the ppth's decision to

participate; word about other differences among the programs does not seem to

spread as widely although some of %the youths who took prevls manpower pro-

. %

programsoare said to prefer tb additional information and services th4t YEDPA,

prbvides.

the other danger posed by atob creation program such as YCCIP is that

it will tempt students to drop out of school. H6re again, local officials

were confident that they prevent such a possibility by working closely with

the schools and'sometimes strictly enforcing locally-initiated rules that

4

4

13
bar YCC1P to any youth who has recently left school. Occasionally a staffer

speculated that the information might pass from out-of-school to inschool

youths since periodically they rhteract informally, but no one was aware of

a single actual case. Some objections though were raised philosophically as

to the relation between these youths and YCCIP, on the grounds that the program

design by proffering such an incentive was ill-advised even if itavere not

acted on. A more common complaint from program operators--and supervisors- -

4 was that the compensation provided by minimum wage was too high for the youths

in terms of what they'could offer the labor market and what they were actually

doing wi t the result that youths were acquiring an illusory view of how they

would and should relate to the world of work once the program was'over. One

program plierator reported that a youth had quit a regular job to work in CETA

because he heard that it was easier, but that problem appeared to be solved

when the youth was put to work in a sanitation landfill.

Indeed, the youth programs more often were viewed a§ creating positive

incentives that would hold a youth in school or encourage the person to return.

In the Muskegon Consortium's YETP program, satisfactory completion of academic

work is a requirement for students who wish to acquire work experience. Stu-

,dents faltering in school face the possibility that they will be suspended

from the work site. Furthermore, since the jobs themselves are often rudimen4tary in nature, by example, they sometimes encourage a youth to think about

school again. As a counselor in another, primesponsor-jurisdiction put it,

"They appreciate school more, and realize that work is not the end of the

"rainbow. They say, 'I don't Want this anymore so I'm going to go back to

school."' The Summer Program for Economically'Disadvantaged Youths (SPEW)

as occasionally criticized for "batchihg the kids through" and "dealing too

. last with too many," but it was defended in several jurisdictions for somewhat---\

131
improved program quality under YEDPA, for providing money for books and clothes

in the fall that is needed to a greater extent than is sometimes realized, and

for creating a summer group in which peer group pressure is sometimes brought

successfully to convince a potential dropout continue school.

2. Program Activity During YEDPA'sTirst Year.

For those prime sponsors who worked extensively with school systems,

the nature of the program designs specified in the YEDPA administrative guide-

. lines dictated virtually ail of the youths' activity with the minor exceptiOn

of YETP's out-of-school program. As indicated in Table 2, YETP enrollments

in all five Michigan prime sponsor jurisdictions were thus closely tied to a

work experience mode, consisting primarily of Career Employment Experience

and work experience program activities. .The Muskegon Consortium wanted to tie

its YCCIP program firmly to the educational process by requiring that all participants either take remedia) education courses or work toward completion of

high school. The YCCIP guidelines encouraged the structurintof projects in

such a way that academic credit may be granted for work experience and that

youths are encouraged to remain or return to school. The Consortium, however,

was compelled by the Chicago Region V office; as a condition for funding, to

alter its proposal so that enrollment in schobi would not be a stipulation for

participation in the prograM.

1. For those prime sponsors who allocated a'high proportion of their funding

to school systems, Career Employment Experience was mandated as a program

activity. Detroit, however, did a considerable amount of cjassroom training

o with its youths from the YETP program, and the Lansing Consortium did some

separate training of this kind, too. Furthermore, the - variety of YETP program- . ming is not quite as limited as it appears, since CEE combines transition

services, work - experience, and classroom training.

13 8
- 7

The blurring together in practice of the theoretically separate and distinct in-school and dut-of-school 'YETP programs also complicates interpretation

of the actual program mix. Since the Muskegon Consdrtium for example, built

high school completion activities into all of its contracts, it was able to

count all YETP participants, even dropouts, as part of its in-school program.

For example, the Urban Opportunity Development Team, the, community -based organization (CBO) in charge of an out-of-schOol program that dealt exclusively

with school dropouts, enrolled all of its youths through a local education

agreement (LEA) in school on a part-time basis. -Other dropouts served by

LEA's were also enrolled in the school system. Elimination of the dichotomy

between thein-school and out-of-school programs may complicate analysis of

the program components, but it is a promising development institutionally to

6 see emerging cooperation between a CBO Charged with responsibility for school

dropouts and the school system itself under the auspices of ,the YEDPA program

3. YEDPA Planning and Its Relation to Performance.

Relating actual planning to performance is difficult, because the

prime sponsors rare allowed periodically to make modifications in their projections, and thus altered figures then become the basis for analysis. Such changes

are necessary for fiscal and program reasons, but they complicate the task of

matching rhetoric and reality. The original planning figures cannot be used

because everyone has come to think in terms of'Nthe modified numbers, but the modified numbers in turn mask the considerable underperformance during the first year

that seems to have characterized the implementation of YEDPA in these five prime

sponsor jurisdictions. That underperformance proved serendipitous in the summer and fall when contractors and prime sponsors alike blanched at the conflict:.

trig funding and enrollment cues emerging from Washington, D.C.,,only to find

that their inability to expend money and enroll participants early in the

139
TABLE 2 Enrollment and Expenditure Levels in Selected Michigan Prime Sponsors Under YCCIP and YETP, Fiscal Year 1978

,-V PROGRAM ACTIVITY - PROGRAM CO ONE/IT COSTS

Selected Michigan

Prise

SpoAsor

1: .2

V

9:1

ft... rt.

. 2 Z.: r 1_. E, E st El - f. ....

r;;; ° it gt .6g

.731-: si- (41 ' gz_s.

c ....... . 0

0 3 r. ... ,,-;

'' `d ? i.-! E

'' .... 0 AL,-) V E OW 0 ...1 ai 1inj . - i 2 g

41 g 7, us t, 6

,-. 8 ,.. 7 i'' ir. E & lq Oa ,3.11_ ,e_

. , 3, 0

.:,u, 0

. 0 lal al

. s a a a al f. 8 0, pi 4-3,E w 0 a 0 .2

.. T. .... - CA .... ,T, _. 0 4.

i. CL 41 C 0 °

z I-. Of 3W 0. 4-. 0

0

;.-. '7

1 ,. v.

' 44 i","., -

IA 2 f

01C ...- g

. .- 8=

11

tal ' " rj ca - a < 0 ." 11 c

t..- 4-3. E .. k lq 3

... ci o 0. 3 ill oF. . $67745T

82% .

f .$67,453

81k

Muskegon Consortium

YCCIP

11_11....

Actual 57 158% -Tr' 57 158% Planned

, 36 $82.683 /

$82,683

9Sig YETP

Actual A 223

77%

289 223

77%

---211T-

',

.

$1b4,88/ 41%

$400,334

..

$164,881

41%

$400,334

$151,41-4 59%

Planned $151,4T4- 59%

Grand Rapids Consortium

.

YCCIP

Actual 113

111%.

113 01

Planned 101 101 $256,385 $256,385

$862:592

77% . YETP

Actual

252 249%

1160 92%

1412

104%

. $334,743

71% . $547,849 v 82% Planned

101

f 1255 1356 $466,221 $665,867. $1,132,088

Kalamazoo

County

YCCIP

Actual

12 150%12 150% $48,148

60%

--$8.0,1-0-

. $48,148

60X

. Planned

8 8 . -----$119,

$80,350

$226,615

72% $31-3,8 ll

$01:1-24

. 95%

$T19,324

$581,318 25Z

$607,702

YETP

Actual IN

8984%, '198

106%

$113 ,0%

-8 79%

$71,153

67% $35,749

81%

Planned 80

101%

106

..

,

. 186

115 102%

$12,552 4 $150,631

1133,E

100%

$106,695 $43,933

. Lansing

Consortium

YCCIP

Actual Planned

113

r 821 97%

113 10TO

114% $69,977

85%

$133,324

$45,372

100.4% $465,969

97% YETP , Actual 88

103% 150

Planned 85 0

839 924 $82,226 $480,286

. $45,190

City of

Detroit

YCCIP

Actual Z27

103%

227 103%

, $286,275 .42%

' $ 286,275

-76777616

64% $3,271Tar

Planned 22r- 157

130%

221 215-TEK91% 107% 23T-120

1 LA

$1,8 C0113-3TWHII

19576-57-7-

532

1671,640 $59150

37% $184,395

$51,150

23% $225,209 YETP

Actual 913

104% 27

53% 40

133% $430,9X12768177138

LA

$798,8 Planned

871 51 30 121

SOURCE: Prime sponsor.plans and reports submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor..

14.0 (-
,.

- 9 -

_ - year had now saved them, as they sat with a surfeit of federal funds that

they intended to carry over anyway.

The YCCIP Experience. Qne of the general lessons that emerges from

YCCIP experience in several jurisdictions seen 42,,be that use of several

-4

contractors may increase the likelihood of effective job creation. Detroit,

the Muskegon Consortium, and Kalamazoo County each chose to commit its YCCIP

resources essentially to one contractor' on the basis of the proposals submit-

.. ted; by the end of the spring, all three of these.prilary contractors had

either withdrawn or manifested serious operating deficiencies. The Kalamazoo

Public School system abandoned its YCCIP project when one of its unions raised

objections. Wayne State University's project in Detroit was not recommended

for refunding in Fiscal Year 1979 by the City of Detroit Manpower Department..

Because of lack of diiiersification, these prime sponsors found themselves

unable to shiffor otherwise utilize funds rapidly, and'ended the year with

scaled-down enrollments and expenditures. The Grand Rapids and Lansing Consortia enjoyed gre;ter success with their.YCCIP projects; in both cases.greater program diversification would seem to have provided them with a 'greater

margin for error. While in some of the more rural areas and counties, they

too are sometimes heavily dependent on a single contractor, the greater number and variety of contractors within the jurisdiction as a whole would have

positioned them better to shift funds4aroupd. The Grand Rapids Area Employment and Training Council (GRAETC) thus had five YCCIP.contractors--four CBO's,-=

. and one LEA. The Lansing Tri-county Regional Manpower Cbnsortium also used

five,contractors, including three CBO's, an LEA, and 'a governmeht agency.,

ZIP
4-

- 10

, The Lansing and Grand Rapids Consortia encountered different problems

ill implementing YCCIP. Lansing's actual enrollments were 102 percent of plan

goals, but actual terminations were 144 percent of planned terminations. More

than one-half of these terminations occurred during the summer months, thereby

leaving only 52 percent of the participants on board at the end of Fiscal -Year

1978. Evidence.that the unexpedtedly high turnover rates may be seasonal is

seen in the numb r of job placements which was 158 percent of plan. Of the

14 . .30 youths enteri g employment, 18 were placed in unsubsidized jobs during the

summer. In addition to terminations resulting from job placements, the actual

number of other positive terminations was 225 percent of plan, as many youths

either returned to school or transferred to other prOgr In the case of

YCCIP, Consortium staffers believe that the low number of youths r4Lning

1,

may be due to project completions and to pessimistic expectations held by the

youths and program deliverers that the projects either would end or nor be

continued the following year. Termination rates, hon-positive termination

rates, and placement -rates appear to be significant problem areas for correction in 1979 in'the Grand Rapids Consortium and elsewhere, too. Thqe problem

areas, however, were apparently sometimes not identified In theend-of-year

1 reports submitted to the Department of Labor, because the actual, performance

figures were not available Until after the date whe the two reports were due.

One of the Detroit contractors particularly emphasized the difference

between dea114-with'older youths, in contrast with those who are sixteen and

seventeen years old. Such youths were seen as much more difficult to place

because of Michigan's labor laws,, the resistance of local unions to the large-

' scale entry of these youths on to their turf, and the riticence of employers

to work with inexperienced youngsters.--Such concerns were echoed by a Kalamazoo YEDPA contractor who complained that the Department of Labor requirements

142
11 - failed. to distinguish sufficiently between what program operators could be

legLtimately-expected to accomplish with this younger group as distinct from

the older youths who faced fewer barriers in the 1 The YETP Experience. Two areas where Kalamazoo

r market.

ETP program fell below

its planned objectives were in the number of potential high school dropouts

to be served and in the amount of training funds to be expended. Both of

these shortfalls related directly to a strategic planning decision made at

YEDPA's inception to focus during the first year'on deYeloping a youth system

and on strengthening relationships and coordinating mechanisms with school

districts. To move ahead rapidly, it was felt, run the risks of accepting

a higher,roportion of program failures and of alienating middle management'

school officials by inviting top school administrators to lean on them. The

Upjohn, Institute fegr Employment Research, Kalamazoo's prime sponsor, places

a heavy emphasis on establishing program control through a centralized system

of-program components and careful monitoring. In the view of staff, the decision to postpone ambitious goal setting for youth programs hai paid off. As

of October' 15, 1978, all in-school slots planned for Fiscal Year1979 were

filled, and school districts, as well as the 'prime-subcpntractor, the Kalama-

... zoo Valley Intermediate School District (KV1SD), have requested that addition-

,al .funds be made availaillg..46r the YETP program.

Muskegon encountered several institutional problems in attempting to

meet its planned YETP goals. Its high proportion of nonpositive terminations

resulted from the elimination of two school districts, the Fruitport and

Muskegon Public Schools, after Fiscal Year 1978. The Muskegon/Public School

k, system was in the process of.reorganizing, and simply deemed the time inappropriate tb apply for the funds. Eruitport Public Schools was discontihued

after serving fewer than half of the YETP youths to whom it was committed

143
under contract. For its part, the Urban League of Greater Muskegon had intended to use in part YETP money in developing an alternative education program 0

for high school dropouts,in Muskegon Heights in Fiscal Year 1979. The bulk of

the funding was to come from the State Deparfmenteof Education until Michigan

Attorney General Frank J. Kelly ruled in July 1978 that state funds could not

be used directly to support educational programs run directly by private agencies. Arrangements are in process to enable the Urban League to work through

the Musekgon Community Colgege, but in the meantime the ruling put a crimp in

that particular YETP program.

Actual YETP enrollments for the year were 105 percent of plan in the Lens-

:ng Consortium, while actual terminations were 131 percent of planned terminapions. This termination activity in excess.of program goals took place primarily in the in-school programs. Approximately 80 per,cent of the prime sponsor's

planne0 erbllments were achieved. A substantial number, however,, could be

found in the'"other positive" termination category, and consisted of youths

who chose to remain in school k The excess of actual over planned terminationswas largely due to the over enrollment CP" participants or creation'of additional program slots by in-school 'program dellrers to spend the residual,

program expenditures that they had accumulated. As'a'result of the Fiscal

Year 1979 cutbacks., this buildup could not be maintained. The'o;terall effect

of this termination activi.ty was to reduce the number of participants present

at the end of the fiscal year. ,The actual number of youths carried nto Fiscal Year 1979 was only 81 percent of the planned goal.

4 Coping With Uncertainty and Changes in YEDPA Planning. YETP, Lansing

Consortium program deli.ver4rs increased 0011umber ofprogram slotS, and in

some cases the number of hours allowed under work experience, in order to-meet*

t.

expenditure goals and spend funds accrued as a result of the delay in imp.le14 4
- 13-

menting YEDPA. At the end of Fiscal Year 1978, approximately 80 percent of

lg %- the 'Consortium YETP allocation was spent, and the remaining 20 Agretrit-Uas

carried into the'new fiscal year. By-contrast, in YCCIP the option of in-'

creasing program slots to spend accumulated funds was not possible because

of limitations on the amount of money that can be spent on program costs

ether than salaries and the need to maintain a 12 .to 1 participant to supervisor project ratio. The only unused but feasible option.in the view of

staff was to expand existing projects. By the end of the fiscal year the

expenditure rate had reached 96 percent of plan; approximately 20 percent

of the Fiscal Year 1978 funds were carried into Fiscal Year 1979.

Tangible short-term damage caused by federal funding uncertainty elsewhere

was minimized, too. As a Detroit veteran of the manpower scene put it, "The

act of the smaller amount of money will simply be a smaller number of pro-

, jectsipnd a lesser number of partidIpants." But bitterness'and concern were

widespread over some unusual problems causedtby this year's cliff-hanger.

b If necessary, the Grand.Rapids'Consortium was prepared to pullback from contractors during the final ten days in September and pool the remaininlg YEDPA

funds in order to assist those who would otherwisebe compelled to close down--

provided that the contractors would'cooperate. This strategy, however, would

entail what a beleaguered staffer termed "the horrendous paperwork required

to write 29 deobligation contract modifications." Irlentive to cooperate with

the Depart2ent of Labor alsaliipped to a new..low as program operator's circulated with a sardonic smile the story of the new contractor who had taken

literally the epartment's early instructiontolexpend funds quickly only to

be caught too late to react when the signals changed later in the summer. The

contract was relatively small so that the matter was handled 1th relative

ease, but what, they speculated, would the person do under comparble.circum1

0
- 14

stances in future yearsr Some contractors suggested that if Congress did not

act on the 1 lation, all Clients should be immediately teemintd and let

the politicians take the brunt, but, while venting such frustrations, they

moved to mitigate the impact of the cuts.

4

Concern in Kalamazoo County over the delay in-passage of Congressional

authorization and appropriation's was heightened.by the considerable publicity

that surrounded federal, and local actions relating to public service,employment

.

. (PSE). Shortly bepore the legislation's expiration date, the Board of Canissioners was told by the Upjohn. institute's PSE project director that funds

from other CETA training programs could keep the. more than 1,000 CETA employ4 ees on the-job until October 18. The Board then supported the County Admin-

. istrator's prdposaf to send out layoff notices which specified that,unless

Congress acte*kprior to that date, the employees would be terminated. The

"1.N adminiwatoti indicated that hemas "95 percent" codfleent that Congress would

I 4

/ what was termed a'"prudent risk" in assuming that they would eventually

act by that date. ,While a fet,4 of' thg_smal ler contractors determined to take tybe

reimbursed for C'ETA paychecks regardless of-the,technical ending date of the

program, none of the large, public CETA employers did The City of Kalamazoo

17 and Western Michigan University duly sent the no shut doWn their

operations, while the County mailed out two reekThe one day break between the layoffs and f uttibrization for intraCETA fund transfers caused little fisAiimpa t, but tt was viewed as an un-!

welcome preview of coming attractions that would i directly,affect YEDPA.

Because of the publcity and layoff notices, local ontractors we more Sensitive to what was and what might have been. a YEDPA c actor with anoexte

sive track record in the community copplained that "1'm...worried about nosing

credibility ith the job stations as a result of thesevshenanigans. The

1 4 G
a

- 15 -

feds never had the credibility so they're not afraid Of losing it." He estimated that abouta half-dozen job stations had pulled out to avoid such jagged

starting and stopping, and emphasized the need for continuity, consistency,

a and support as incentives to gainemployer support. A Kalamazoo prime sponsot=

staffer offered the view that "if we had,pulled orL the schools what we pulled

on the PSE projects, we could have lost,the whole thing. It would have been

a couple of years befo* re we could have.gotten back." Kalamazoo and Muskegon . manpoWer personnel also expressed concern that they would Tose some of the

supervisors for their YEDPA projects whom they are paying with CETA Title VI

funds. They did not feel that they would control who would be laid off in

order to avoid that possibility.

4. Planning for Fiscal Year 1979.

Given the atmosphere of uncertainty and low morale-that characterized

the Fiscal Year 1979 planning process, it is perhaps not surprising that these

4.Michigan prime spOnsors have not introduced any particularly striking innovations'or'marked departures from what they did during YEDPA's first year.

Those jurisdictiOns which for a variety of reasons moved more slowly in developing their 1978 plens7-Detroit,.the Muskegon Consortium, hand Kalamazoo--did;

however, shore up the changes that they made during the year, and have made

some adjustments that bring them close" to YEDPA's legislative intent.

Detroit, disappointed that Its contractors did not do more with the opportunity Ofered by knowledge development, has determined that as prime sponsor,

it will play a larger role in such evaluation' this year. It has not yet submitted its knowledge deve opment goals and plans to the Region V office, but

intends to supply the kind o technical assistance that it faults the Department af'Labor for itself failing to provide the contractors last year. The

City of Detroit's Manpower Department (CDOM) will utilize its newly created
-16-

Grants and Research Division, together with de livery agents that It is in the

process of selecting, to take over also responsibility for outreach and re-

. cruitMent of YETP's out-of-school youths, having concluded that the educational

system is better equipped to.handle such functions for the in-school youths.

To beet up the quality of its work experience, Detroit is placing greater

stress on assuring that the supervisor "will maintain reasonable work standards"

and will "not mistakenly overlook poor performance." Work is also to be plan-

,/

ned in such a way that participating youths will be exposed to a combination

of work assignments. Emphasis is also evident in its FEY 1979 plan on'insertN, ing more of the components advocated in YEDPA into the Summer Program for

Economically Disadvantaged Youths (SPEDY) and on linking SPEDY and YEDPA more

closely. In its YCCIP plan, CDOM has not yet completed negotiations with its

school system, but is placing greater emphasis than last year on obtaining

academic credit for youths as a result of competencies gained on the job.

As a result of testing that it did in its YETP program, the Muskegon

Consortium is placing much heavier emphasis in its Fiscal Year,1979 plan on

remedial education. Remedial reading programs will be required of all YETP

participants who score below the ninth grad evei during assessment. To

achieve this goal, the Consortium will ely in part on the use of peer tutors.

To build more incentive into its work experience, the Consortium will experiment with what it terms a "levelizing" concept in 1979 YETP work experience

positions and YCCIP projects will be classified progressively at the entry,

mid, and advanced evels, on the'basis of the degree of sophistication requi7itkand par,ticipants will be able to 'fuel ify for promotions as well a.

raises. Promotion from one level of work experience to the next, for example,

would include a5 percent wage increase. PartiC.ipants would eventually have

'their overall performance in either YETP or YCCIP compiled. on a certificate

A. 148

f
- 17 -

that would simultaneously serve as a resume, a list of completed activities

and learned skills, and a symbol of achievement. The Consortium is also placing more emphasis on what it calls !Isocial area skill training" designed to

-,/,

improve a youth's ability to-find and holeii a jdb, on a Vocational Exploration

(VEP), and on a referral/placement system compOnent, included as part of CEE,

t to monitor the participant's progress during the termination phase. The Consortium has also stipulat that perCent of each YETP program mast consist

of youths classified as overac 41i?evers:,defined as posSeAsing a grade point

average (GPA) of 3.5 or above. Patterned after the Reverend Jesse Jackson's

PUSH for excellence program, it is intended to create a more effective learning situation by injecting positive peer support and pressure within the YETP

program. The YCCIP program is tied partly to the hirin6 of a forester who

will develop a forest management plan for all county-owned land, and design

(11

o th and PSE projects accordingly. An initial project will be the planting

f'60,000 trees at the county's Wastewater Management Site.

There is a feeling among some Muskegon Consortium staff members Chat'the

capacity was simply not"there to,implement YEDPA effectively during the first

year, and time did 'not allow it to be established rapidly enough/. As a result,

staff tried various experiments to learn what would work in the course of the

year, and now feels more confident about what it has designed. Indeed, they

feel that when the intermediate school district withdrew, and compelled the

Consortium to scuttle its plan and operate largely.on an ad hoc basis, the

result was to create a vacuum, thereby enabling the prime sponsor to experiment more widely. Freed from premature closure that mightnave locked them

into a "paper plan," the Consortium could explore new directions which resulted

in. the eventual dev'lopment of a-- stronger second year plan. Progress with the

schools remains uneven, but some Of the educators cooperating with the Depart1 4
18

merit of Education and Training feel that YET! during the secdnd year may proVe

more effeCtive than earlier efforts melding manpower and eduCation.

The main difficulty that.led Kalamazoo ,County to develop only 12 YCCIP

positions was an inadequate pool of `/CLIP projects.- The Upjohn Institute,for

Employment Research, which as the result of a 1978 reorganization is now in

charge ,of CETA planning. as well as operations, has taken steps to create a

larger such pool Ty identifying those PSE projects that could be implemented

by youths and submitting those projects as a possible modification to its YCCIP

t Fiscal Year 1979 plan. The necessity to submit such a modification and the sti-

. pulation that the Department of*Labor must approve projects prior to implementation, however, may leave Kalamaioo once again with only one approved project

in 1'979 Only two projects were subMitted_under YCCIP for the coming Year,

and one of them, as a primer sponsor staffer put it, "saffered from a mainte-

, nance of effort probleri." The one YCCIP project was hardly sufficient unto

4.1 itself to make last year's entire Program a success, but it did at least

accomplish itgoals of building nature trails and producing educational

materials for an Outdoor Activity Center.

t),

The YETI? program in 1979 is expindjng its supportive servicesto the

in-school program, and is providing more employability information to the

a out-of-school youths. Youth Opportunities Unlimited (YOU), the'prime contractor, is also experimenting with the Michigan Occupational Information

System (MO)S), and is working informally on job placement with the,N Tonal

Alliance of Businessmen's NAB-JOBS program and with the Michigan'Employment

Security Commissron(MESC). Relying essentially on guest 'speakers drawn from

the private and public sectors, YOU has also launched &series of workshops to

.74 'provide youths with infOrmation on the world of work.

Like several of the other prOe sponsors, the Grand Rapids Consortium

v*

1
- 19 -

( GRAETC)' concluded that'its YETP program had achieved more of its YEDPA goals

and served youths better than'YCCIP. YETP encountered fewer problem's on site,

and more novations were achieved by the YETP contractors. One of the community-based organizations, the Allegan County Resource Development Committee,

thus assigned its youths to supervisors it Plig identified as particularly well

qualified, and held bi-weekly meetings between contractor staff and the super-

. vi.sors. AnothecC130, EightCAP, Inc., deverdped a three-phase progrio consisting of part-time work and transitional service,for the initial five months,

iittensified work experiepce during the summer, and a final month of transitional services and placement assistance. The Wyoming Public Schools followed

through on the emphasis on its funding proposal that "the job site will be the

main classroom for this program." Like Detroit, GRAETC was disappointed in

the limited capability exhibited by its program operators to follow through

on knowledge development, and is contemplating a larger prime sponsor role in

1979. GRAETC decided that the most noteworthy achievement of its YETP program .

was the ability that all five of its contractors eAhjbited--three C.80's as

well as two LEA's--to negotiate successfully for academic credit. GRAETC was

least sanguine about developing worksites next year that would accommodate a

sufficient,spam of their participants' career aspirations, concluding in its

YETP annual repoPt'that "admirable as YEDPA's goal,of-matching jobs with

career aspirations is, legal, regulatory, and traditional limits farover-.

shadow that goal in practical terms."

GRAETC began its 1979 YEDPA planning process in the spring in order to

avoid the time pressures comparable to the previous year. That process was

unfortunately somewhat simplified by the absence of significant grant competition from agencies not involved in 1978. Only one new contractor emerged in
- 20 -

YETP, and the list of YCCIP contractors was no different from the. previous

year. The Planning Committee subsequently had to petition GRAETC's Advisory

Planning Council to allow revisions in th two annual plans that would bring

them into compliance with changes in the Department of Labor planning format.

Those changes caused considerably less stir than the funding uncertainty. As

one GRAETC staffer wryly observed, "Our planning worked out perfectly, but

the figures threw us.,off."

The Lansing Consortium had.a Tonger history of cooperation with the schools

in youth programming so its rCutines were more firmly established and required

fewer adjustments in 1979. Funding levels and the expected number of participants to be served closely paralleled the previous year. In YETP, one class-

\room training program delivered by a private training institute was not refunded due to poor program performance. The proportion of YETP funding allocated

through LEA agreements remained at 78 percent from FY 1978 to FY 1979 One new

program deliverer was added in YCCIP. Although there was a percentage increase

in the Consortium allocation to LEA's for YETP in-school programs, total LEA

funding in 1979 will increase by only $28,724; out-of-school funds are expected

to increase only slightly, to.

The Consortium is anti ipating a 30 to 40 percent cut in its YEDPA ! allocation as a result of the shift from a 9 to a 12-month operating basis,' the

failure of Congress to pass the propos0 $500 million supplemental youth

appropriation, the carry-in of 27 percent of FY 1978 funds, and the availabil

ity of only 93 percent of last year's funding level. Locally, the expected

decreases have led program deliverers to reduce the number of participant

Slots and to cut the size of youth 'program staffs. Careful program planning

by LEA's, an essential element in Fiscal Year 1978, Is expected to be less

extensive activity in 1979, as program operators assign a high priority to

//

152
- 21 - making only limited cutbacks in services to participants and in the overall

number of participants served. Because of this sizable decrease in the funding

level, the amount available for the 10,percent YETP,mixed income knowledge A

development experiment will similarly be decreased. .To maintain the sample

size at a sufficiently high level, the Consortium decided only to fund the

experiment participants above the 85 percent lower living income standard

level with the 10 percent monies, and to fund CETA-eligible experiment parti-

... cipant$ with regular YETP funds. The experiment will be similar to last year

except that a control group of 30 students has been added. These students,

while not receiving YETP training, will be administered identical pre- and

post-program tests in order.to measure their employability skill progress

without program participation.

5.. The Quality of Prime Sponsor Data.

To run knowledge development experiments and effective programs generally, prime sponsors are aware that they must possess data that is accurate,

reliable, and comprehensive. In meeting their data needs, all of them assign

a high priority to maintaining efficient and strict management information

systems (MIS). These sytems are devoted largely to insuring that federal

grant requirements are met. Federal contract stipulations determine much of

the data collected by these monitors. Cues as to the success of this program

assessment function are derived primarily from the Department of Labor Region V

to, office and from living uOito the performance standards delineated by the na- 4

tional MIS. When asked about the reliability and accuracy of their systems,

prime sponsor staffers thus point, in the case of the Muskegon Consortium and

Kalamazoo County, to high ratings on field audits and, in the case of GRAETC,

to a record of never having had a disallowed cost. The Lansing Consortium's

-,, Operations Departthent was among the first jurisdictions in Region V to compu1,1

153
- 22 -r

terize its MIS, and also places great emphasis on running its programs eco-

)nomically and efficiently.

Maintaining the accurate and reliable performahce indicators, then, is

regarded by these jurisdictions as a matter of survival. Considerable organizational energy is devoted to verifying the YEDPA data through contact with

schools, site visits by monitors working for the prime sponsor, checking with

the Michigan Department of Social Services on AFDC status and with the Michigan

Employment Se4urity Commission on unemployment insurance status, and, where

necessary, through conversations with neighbors. Prime sponsor staff members

also review the data for consistency. For example, the Muskegon Consortium

administers monthly participant evaluation forms and also periodically asks

the participants to evaluate the supervisors. f has checked these responses for consistency, and beliet/es them to be accurate, since the responses

fall into reasonable patterns and the answers are not extreme.

The original sources of program data are the individual program deliverers who must submit several kinds of monthly reports. It is these reports

that evoke the most bitter complaints, about red tape from the contractors- -

complaints that are particularly vociferous, because unlike the prime sponsors,

they assign a relatively low significance to the type of quantitative monitoring and assessment functions performed through the MIS. The vehemence of

their complaints is perhaps the best unabtrusive measure of the accuracy of

the data collected in these jurisdictions. 41. 6. Evaluation of Youth Programs.

Prime sponsors vary considerably in the degree to which the scope of

their evaluation activities moves beyond federal" requirements, but in all

cases they are scrutinizing CETA in greater detail YEDPA is not the stimulus

) for this changing approach, but knowledge developient has Captured the interest

154
e'r

- 23 -

of these local prime sponsors, and it has been woven into their research and

evaluation plans. The Grand Rapids Consortium does not collect more data than

.the Department of Labor requires. All YETP projects are monitored fiscally

and programmatically on a monthly basis, with contractors required to describe

methods they will use to correct deviations that vary more than 15 percent

from planned performance. GRAETC's contract administrators analyze contractor

descriptions of proposed corrective action, concur or disagree with them,

and work with the subcontractors to eliminate deviations. YCCIP projects are

monitored irk a similar fashion on a quarterly basis. The entire YCCIP and

YETP programs are monitored in the same way with GRAETC program officers assuming responsibility for analyzing deviations, taking corrective action, and

reporting program performance to the Executive Director and to the Consortium's

Monitoring and Evaluation Committee. Kalamazoo County also places considerable

emphasis on the monitoring.routines .used to collect data required by the

Department of Labor, but compiles, some additiohal information, too. Sometimes

it subdivides federal classifications, but it also includes additional variables. For example, under YEDPA it has broken down the positive and nonpositive termination categories into a sizable number of subcategories in order to

determine more - precisely what is happening to the youths. It is also asking

ractors to record the census tract from which the youth comes.

The Lansing COnsortium has developed an ambitious Evaluation Department,

separate and distinct from the units that handle MIS and fiscal performance.

This Department has collected and analyzed considerably more data than is required by the Department of Labor, and iN-unning a.mixed income knowledge

development experiment for the second year. It has also independently evaluated its summerf SPEDY program, collected participant job retention data on a

30-60-90 day basis, and done a pre-and post-program participant wage analysis%

155

I.

a
The Operations Unit primarily collects the necessary monitoring information,

Wit it is also vested with responsibility forinsuring that activities and

agreements, including LEA agreements', are carried out as specified in the

plan.

The Muskegon Consortium is another prime sponsor that has conducted

evaluation activities extending beyond federal reporting requirements. In CETA's Title 1;as well as Title III, it has collected as?essment information

twice a year concerning reading and math leve*snd client/eharacertics as

well as labor market information not mandated by the Department of Labor.

Under YEDPA, it has administered Hartman and Rokeach value inventories to

its participants, performed monthly participant evaluations, and done analyses of its systeA components.

Solidifying Knowledge Development. in the frehzy and confusion of.implementing YEDPA, evaluation in the form of knowledge development experiments

was generally pushed to the back burner until the program was in place. As

Kalamazoo County explained in its YCCIP Annual Report, "In light of the time

constraints under which the program was operated and the lack of. information

on knowledge development at the onset of the program, no extensive knowledge

development goals were established." Indeed, the Grand Rapids Consortium

YCCIP Report observed, "There is still a great deal of confusion at the local

and regional levels as to the form and substance it should take." Where methodology for such evaluation was not already in place in a prime sponsor jurisdiction, it simply was not possible to become concerned about fOcusing.on

I.. developing such capacity.

Even this brief exposure to the kind of qualitative and substantive

uation articulated under knowledge development, however, produced some movement.

In the case of the Lansing Consortium where such evaluation capacity existed,

the YEDPA guidelines influenced'the prime sponsor's research agenda.° Prior to

1 5 G
-25-

the implementation of YEDPA, no previous knowledge development or evaluation

experiments had been condubted with area youth programs. YEDPA led /o a mixed income experiment and other inquiries, too. Where the capacity eithen

did trot exist or could not bebroughtto bear, 1978 seemed to evoke some

ideas that are being pursued in 1979. In Detroit, where proposals were previously vague, the City by the time of its 1979 YEDPA plans had joined with

selectedcoritractors,andrAannedtotesttheiwpothesis that "the particular

problems of urban youth can be more effectively addressed by using the accountabiri y-oriented management techniques of a business organization to design

and d elop an.alterhative educational system rather than the traditional

school system." The Muskegon Consortium had desifined a knowledge-deve&opment

Amxperiment.that was abandoned when the intermediate schbol district withdrew

from YEDPA, and had then administered a series of attitud achievement

test's on its youths. Building on these first step\, it is now aggregating

and analyzing its findings, and in 1979 has added a control group in order to

measure more accurately the likely impact of the programs themselves.

The evolution of knowledge development in .the Grand Rapids Consortium

suggests that while progress is unt kely to be dramatic, in the long run it

may be significant. Confronted with the confusion caused by the concept of

knowledge development in the 1978 administrative guidelines, GRAETC, responded

with a twelve -page memorandum which it mailed to ail contractors. After

tracing the legislative history of YEDPA, defining knowledge development, and

providing examples of activities that might be implemented, it asked each

contractor to identify at least one knowledge development activity that could

be incorporated as a modest experiment along with their primary YEDPA conterns. Because of the small size and labor intensive nature'of the YCCIP grant,

however, it indicated in its first year YCCIP Annual Report that it had placed

15 ;"
-26-

more emphasis On such activities in YET? than,in YCCIP. ContractOrs responded

in four out of five cases with commitments to implement knowledge development

experiments between June and September. "'GRAETC chose to rely on self-evaluation of the experimental outcomes by the contractors themselves, partly because

the Consortium has had little experience,..yath project evaluation and partly

because such self-evaluation would be less threatening to the contractors.

Consortium staffers were Somewhat crisappornted with the limited follow-up

on this commitment. They found that the contractors had often failed to implement activities, eeded more objective means for evaluating their hypotheses, had generally not roduced particularly innovative activities, and had

difficulty implementing projects that involved a small number of participants.

The Consortium then called a meeting of its contractbikkon November 1, shared

these findings, and encouraged the Agencies to repeat their experiments but to

formulate them in a more useful manner'and to work more closely with the Consortium staff in carrying them out in 1979. The contractors would then hoPe-

, full'frefofmulate their experiments accordingly. While any positive assessment

of this knowledge development learning process would be premature, derisive

criticism'of the limited findings to date would be premature, too.

101m

7. The S mmer Youth Programs.

The S er Program for Eccinomically Diiadvantaged Youths (SPEDY)

particularly pleased the YEDPA srice deliverers because,it held out the

possibility of increasing the number of summer placements for students in the

in-school program. Such participanti were identified, and received services

under SPEDY, and 4n several jurisdictions were then transferred into YETP

when the school year began, thereby assuring continuity of youth services

and work experience on a full -year basis. This process was facilitated in

the Lansing Consortium where the summer SPEDY program was delivered by the same

158
- 27 - t four area school and Intermediate school districts responsible for implementing.

the 1978 and subseqUently the 1979 YETP in- school programs. The Consortium

designed SPEDY to be implemented in much the same wav as the career employment

experience activities In the in-school YETP programs.

In the Grand Rapids Consortium, too, there were extensive links among

YCCIP, YETP, and SPEDY, and as in the other locations,gjobs, pay rates, and

supportive services remained-largely unchanged. Since four of the six YEDPA

contractors were also SPEDY contractors, intratitle transfers posed no particular problems. GRAETC encouraged this kind of a result by issuing a single

request for proposals (RFP) for YCCIP, YETP, and SPEDY. The ease of trantitioning the YETP youths between the winter and summer programs also pro '2ed a

useful sellingpoint to convince reticent contractors, nervous about increas

e ing the Yisk of disallowed costs, to serve economically disadvantaged youths

exclusivery., the YETP youths would thin all.qualify under the more stringent

. SPEDY administrative guidelineis. Agreement on this, point largely explains'

why 97 percent of the YETP participants were classified as economically disadvantaged, and how GRAETC was thus able to meet one of its Consortium goals.

Eventually, though, this jurisdiction and the others were unable to transition

as Many of the.youths from SPEDY into YETP as they had intended because of the

4 Fiscal Year 1979 federal funding complicatiohs.. Kalamaioo utilizes the same

primary'contractor, YOU, for its summer and regular youth PrOlfSms which simplified, the transition process here, too. In the Muskegon Consortium, coordi-

, nation was less evident, as the intermediate sch6o1 district, while remaining

aloof from the YETP program, continued to run the summer SPEDY Program. Some

tompetition for job sites occurred, and the kinds of YETP quality components

that some contractors elsewhere were carry

4

ing over from,their regular (978

youth programs surfaced less frequently.
-28-

There is little evidence of any...difference between the job sites used

during the 1978 SPEDY program and previous years. As a Detroit manpower executive explained, "we had to go with the usuals." While there is a limit to,

what can be done with short-term, labor-intensive jobs, though, some contractors felt that they were at least linking ,Ihe positions to more services than

was previously true. The Grand Rapids Pgblid School system experimented with

a remedial reading progrard.for some of its'youths on a voluntary basis; Kalamazoo'i YOUcommunicated more career information to the out-of-school youths

than in previous summers; and within the Lansing Coniortium, several schools

worked more extensively with career exploration and career orientation worka shops: But lounselors and.administrators in the SPEDY program were cautious

in their assessments. A counselor did not want the work experience to take on-

"too much of a school mentality" fa youths who need something different from

an extension of school. An executive complained that by February, much of.the

sr3 gain would wash out, because the schools would not follow up with the youths

quickly enough when bad habits reasserted themselves. By the time that they

did, it would be too late. There were also complaints about the way that

"SPEDY batches 'em through."

. Certainly the SPEDY enrollments were sizeable, and crele something of

what one executive termed "a.nightmare to adminisAr." Kalamazoo enrolled 829

participants, the Muskegon Consortium approximately 1,000, the Grand Rapids

Consortium 2,477, and the Lansing Consortium 1,727 youths. But the little

data available beyond enrollment and financial figures seemed to suggest that

. ...... the pdrticipants were deriving some benefits. Two random sample surveys of

SPEDY worksites monitored by GRAETC found almost all of the youths at a total

9f 23 locations productively engaged at such places as a clothing center sewing

prolect, Health Departmen a park. YOU indicated in its summer report

that when. it followed u 30 days laer on why youths terminated from its SPEDY

160

f
4

- 29 -

program, it found that 80 percent returned to school, 3 percent were employed,

and 5 percent were in another manpower program; 4 percent were unemployed and

8 percent could not be located.`

An analysis by the Evaluation Unit of the Lansing Consortium yielded some

interesting findings worthy.of fukher study. The researchers asked whether

the type. of job performed by a SPEDY participant is dependent on the type of

agency--school, government agency; or community -based organization- -that provid#s the worksites for the youthe. Analysis of the 1,384 Fiscal Year 1978

SPEDY worksitesvealed that half of all participants were placed at a school-

- based Worksite, 30 percent were placed at an agency, and 21 percent'at a CBO..

The high proportion placed at the schools and low proportion Identified by the

:-tBO's took on added significance when the tendency emerged for school-based

. worksites to provide maintenance jobs and governMent/agenctes to make avatlable clerical positions, while the CBO's were most likely to supply a variety

of jobs such as security guard, library aide, lab assistant, and teacher.

a
a' PART` TWO: ISSUES OF PRIMARY CONCERN IN EVALUATING YOUTH

EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION LOCALLY

. The Michigan prime sponsors examined in this study have ily and large

plied with the goals and,sUbsequent administrative guidelines articulated

trough YEDPA. The priorities assigned to various program activities and

ganizational mechanisms, however, differ markedly depending on what is of,

primary concern to a given locality when the new program is announced. YEDPA

is sufficiently flexible so that when prime sponsors viewed it as either necessary or.desirable for CETA programs generally or youth programs in particu-

, lar to move in a particular directionthey were able to adapt YEDPA, parti-

, cularly YETP, accordingly. In every case such adaptation was legal and

straightforward, but the result was a series of youth programs that reflected

not only national priorities but alio local adjustments to differing environmental constraints, opportunities, and needs. Those opportunities increased

when the state of Michigan passed its own youth programs, and determined to

channel its funding too through the prime sponsors.

Shifting environmental concerns create unique contexts within whicrime

sponsors, if they recognize the resulting choices, can maneuver. By 1978,

several of these jurisdictions had 'formulated some priorities on where they

wanted to go, and as CgTA generally took on an increasingly local orgarlizational character, YEDPA, while still pefforming its primary functions, settled

-- quite differently into the various jurisdictions. To understand how YEDPA

relates to these areas, it is necessary to examine it within the context of

prime sponsor progress generally. .This section begins with a review of state ' youth program activity and its implications for the prime sponsors. It then

examines the relation of cooperative assessment, as developed by the Muskegon

Consortium for YEDPA, to a desire within the Consortium to formulate a CETA30 -

62
U

iv

3)

wide manpower system. The Lansing Consortium's move to solidify and extend`'

its LEA agreements reflects a long-standing priority within that jurisdiction,

previously pursued on a somewhat different and smaller scale, to facilitate

a closer linkage fkr youths between manpower and education. The widespread

and numerous initiatives in Det4it to involvebthe private sector, schools, 1

unions, and the prime sponsor jointly in yduth planning and programming has

already achieved an impact on YETP and YCCIP, and seems Ikely to shape it

even more in the future. In Kalamazoo, the prime sponsor is a private nonprofit agency which has become well known nationally for the systems approach

6 that it has brought to CETA. In coping with YEDPA, the Upjohn Institute for

Employment Research assigned a high priority developing an effective youth

0 ystem,as an integral part ois the solution:

1._ The Emergence of New Youth Employment Programs at the State Level: . The Case'of Michigan.

No study of the implementation of. the Youth EmoJoyment and Demonstration ProActs Act of 1577.(YEDPA) in Michigan'would be complete without citing

progressive and complementary steps by the state's governor and legislature

to enact laws similar to YEDPA.

Redognition of the problem posed by youth unemployment 6ypt accompanied by

particularly vigorous statements by Michigan's elected'ficials and their

allies. According to the Youth Task Force created by Speaker of the House

of Representatives Bobby D. Crim, "The problem of youth unemployment is so

massive in Michigan, in fact, that both state and federal programs, even the

most recent, barely make a dint and principally only serve to prevent the

problem from becoming worse." 1 The state's, chief executive publicly endorsed

youth employment appropriations in his "State of the State" message in early

1"Prelimjnary Report of the Youth Employment Task Force," Michigan Speaker

of the^Nouse of Representatives, Lansing, February 16, 1978.

,f

90

- ,
1977: Governor William Millike6, in establishingyouth employment as a prior-,

ity for his administration; observed-that "NO matter how well our/system may

function in other respects,.we fail in our responsibilities if we do not meet

the ngeds of our young people, and particularly their desire to obtain suitable employment." Reflecting the somber tone conveyed bythe governor and` the

legislature, Patridk Babcock; Director of the Michigan Department of Labor,

expressed frank and unvarnished concern:

We must accept the-fact that many types of remedial employement services do not, for the most part, enable our youth to

--N become truly employable. I am concerned by cautious admin-,,

stration.and less than total commitment to solving our nation's

youth employment cri-sis. The system has attended-to each

political crisis, but the problem is still withus. The sys-2

-tem havinioduced a bureaucratic paradise, but few solutions.

Babcock then proceeded to spell out, in broad terms reminiscent of the U.S.

Department of Laboi-'s "Planning Charter for the Youth Employment and Demonstration PrOjects Act," his own prescription for solving the problems of unemployt

ment and undereMployment among 'Michigan's young,geople.

Youth'rEmplayment Programs Available in Michigan. Before the legislative

flurry of youth programming activity which began in Lansing in the springof

1977, there were a number of state and federal programs already in operation.

The Summer Program for Economically Disadvantaged Youth (SPED?), funded under

Title III of the Comprehensive Employment and T?iining Act (CETA), brought

approximately $26 million into the state in 1977. The Job Corps, also a component of CETA, maintained a center at one site in the state. The Youth Cone. servation Corps, administered by the Michigan Department of Labor, Ofgated

projects that wereltupervised by itte State Department of Natural Resources.

4i:finally, a Department of Highways and Tran'sportation program, funded at $950,000

2LABORegister," Bureau of Community Services, Michigan Department of

Labor, March, 1978, page 59.

161
-33

in 1977, provided summer jobs to youths.

The State of Michigan authorized' three new programs, however, as a conse-

.quence of the rapidly0expanding national'awareness of the magnitude and impications of joblessness among young people who, under normal eIrcumstances,

should have been completing. high school,'entering college, or entering the

world of work. These three state youth initiatives were (1) Michigan Summer

Jobs, 1977; (2) The Michigan Employment Program; and (3) The Michigan Youth

Employment Clearinghouse.

Michigan Summer Jobs, 1977. GovernorMilliken proposed a perm6nent $10

million youth employmeht program in his-State of the State Message in early

1977. His proposal entailed training approximately 2,500 youths between the

ages of fifteen and twenty-one to install winterization materials and insulation in the homes of low-,income persons. An interesting feature was oCat the

program required that some of the youth participants be juvenile offenders.

The governor's proposed $9.25 million program was introduced into the

House of Representatives in the spring of 1977 and passed with little controversy. ,At approximately the same time, however, State Senator Kerry Kammer

introduced a different $10 million youth employment program in the Senate.

His bill, poptilarly kriOwn As the Work Opportunities Resources Corps_(WORC)

bill, called for the creation of 6,000 jobs for youths between the ages of

fifteen andtwenty-ode. As originally proposed, youths would work in park

Cleanup, river beautification, erosion control, wildlife and habitat management, lake mapping, campsite construction and, trail development.

While both bills progressed through.the legislative mill in and June,'

it became increasingly eiiident that political lines were being drawn between

, the bill- supported by the governor (the Kehres bill) and-tfie Kammer bill. The

0 director of.the Michigan.6epartment'of Labor criticized the Kammer bill as

providing only dead ;end jobs. Democrats responded by ridiculing Milliken's

CT

16-3
-34-

,proposal to, as they put it, "send felons into private homes to work."3 On June 29, 1977, the parties reached a compromise that reduced the

Kammer WORC bill to 45 million and 3,000 jobs and the Kehres bill to $5.2

million qnd 1,100 jobs. The Kammer bill was to be administered by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, with a significant portion of funds

going to units of local government. No income eligibility r uirements were

required for enrollment in WORC. The Michigan'Employment security Commission

handled recruitment and enrolment. The Kehres bill- was to be admini-stered

by the Bureau of Community Services of the Michigan Department of Labor, with

most cf the funding for insulation aed weatherization activities going to

community action agencies (CAA's). Unlike the WORC programL,the insulation

and weatherizationprogram emphasized enrollment of youths from poor families.

Two economically disadvantaged youths were to be hired for every oneadjudi-

. cated youth.

.Unfortunately, however, the process of reaching compromise between the

two youth b.-lls seriously delayed final enactment. By the time the governor

hadlsigned the two bills, many needy youths had already been out of school

and jobless for a month. it then took approximately three weeks for the two

state departments to begin implementation, followed by an additional two or

' three weeks for local implementation. The first youth was hired on July/25th,

but.most did not begin work until the first or second week of August. For

these two ten-week summer programs, then, late start-up was a serious problem.

State administrators Also complained about the poor quality of t e grant

V applications resulting from the pressure.to get WORC and the insulation and

weatherization program off the ground. Local administrators, on the other

nd, complafWed about inaclequate time for planning or for training supervisors.

3"Macomb Daily," Jane 10, 1978.
35 -

Time constraints also severely limited their ability to match the job with

the youth. Members of the legislature, taking their turn, complained because

state administrators had not begun to "gear up" as soon as it was Obvious

that the two bills would pass.

Ironically, one of the few "positive" conclusions reached by the agency ' that evaluated the implementation of the two 1977 summer programs was that AP the rush had increased the ability of state and local administrators to produce under hurried conditions.

4 The evaluators apparently did not ask whether

there was any merit in being compelled to hurry a program into operation.

Both summer programs expired on September 30, 1977. The Michigan Department of Labor reported that 5,437 youths/were enrolled by the twenty-seven

community action agencies participating in the insulation and weatherization

program. The Department of Natural Resources indicated that 5,728 youths

were enrolled in its WORC program. Since both summer programs had been proposed and enacted as) permanent programs, they were implemented again in the

summer of 1978. Information about their outcOme,i9 not presently available.

The Michigan Employment Program. The Michigan Employment Program (MEP)

was enacted by the legislature in October, 1977, and $10 milkion was subsequently appropriated to the program. The program is distinctive because it

complements the State's summer youth programs by providing a year-round employment and training program. MEP's purpose also differs from past prograMs

funded by the State. Using a flexible approach to prtgram choipes, the Act

is intended to place people from low-incorrie families in jobs in the private

sector. In this case "low-income" is defined as any family's income which

does not exceed125% of the poverty level established by the federal Office of

14"The 1977 Michigan Summer,Youth Employment Programs: A Report on Implemeotation Issues,: Michigan Association of Children's Agencies, 1977, page 7.
- 36 -

Management and Budget. The program's ultimate goal was to place 4,500 enrollees in unsubsidized jobs in the private sector by the end of 1978.

M , Although the MEP Act and its subsequent administrative guidelines did not

identify specific age groups to be served, the Michigan Office of Management

and Budget added four program-related policies after appropriations were alA located:

--Young people should receive special consideration. It was decided

that the inordinately high unemployment rate of youths between the

ages of sixteen and twenty-four warranted such an emphasis.

--Those most in need of services should be given preference. The relatively high unemployment rate of certain population groups required

special attention.

--The youths and other significant segments should be placed in jobs

that were new. Under no circumstances should they displace existing

workers.

--Participants should be put in relatively high paying jobs.

,Additionally, MEP emphasized the importance of school retention or return to

school for dropouts. Thus, while youths were not initially singled out as the

target group for MEP, they became, its primary beneficiaries.

MEP stressed the importance of placing youths in jobs that provide some

career orientation. To that end, Section 39(g) of Michigan Public Act 100,

which appropriated MEP's funds, stated that "Provision shall be made to provide employment opportunities in the private sector that have the potential

for productive and meaningful career opportunities commensurate with individual skill development,"

A number of similarities betsinh MEP and YEDPA are apparent. Indeed,

$256,621 of YEDPA money granted to a State of Michigan was used to fund'

the salaries of the nine staff mem rs responsible for planning, monitoring

and administering MEP. What di tinquishes MEP from its fedeeal counterpart

is'its programmatic flexibilit While on-the-job training is a focal point,

168
-37-

the State's%guidelines for that training are simpler. Another signficant

example of programmatic flexibility is the large portion of MEP, funds used

to place the applicants directly in jobs with private for-profit businesses,

a feature which many Michigan CETA prime sponsors envy.

Implementation of MEP began in January, 1978. Although the first contract became effective in December, most of the first stage contracts were

executed between January 3 and April 3. MEP was implemented in four stages

which include some intriguing variations in program design:

--MEP I: Contracts totalling approximately $1.5 million were signed

with eleven community action agencies throughout the upper and lower

peninsulas. The goal of the first stage was to provide employment

and training services to approximately 325 persons and then place them

in private sector jobs. The program actually served 590 persons, of

whom 83 percent were under the age of twenty-one. Females constituted

40 percent of those enrolled. A very high percentage, 86 percent,

were classified as economically disadvantaged, and 88 perceht were

unemployed at the time of enrollment.

--MEP II: The Michigan Department of Labor executed 17 contracts directly with private for-prof.it employers to provide jobs. Seventy

percent of the participants were under the age of 21. Thesecontractors included Chrysler Learning, Inc., Champion Billiards, Inc., Community National Bank of Pontiac, Perry DrugeStores, Burger King, and

'Ultra Carbon Corporation. On-the-job-training was a program activity

in all seventeen contracts, and classroom-training was a feature in

five of them. A total of 320 persons were eventually enrolled under

MEP II at a bor of approximately $868,00CL.

--MEP III: This stage of MEP was similar to MEP II, except that the

Department of Labor did not become directly involvegrin outreach,

A. intake, or participant selection. Those activities were contracted

to third parties, who then turned the applicants over to private sector

employers for OJT and classroom training. MEP III was a $2 million

program designed to enroll 1,200 people. Examples of such private

sector employers were Sun D'rite Auto Reconditioning, All-Carpet Care,

Grandview Duplication, Tito's Donuts, and Horizon Engineering. Sixtysix percent of the MEP III participants were under the age of twentyone. --MEP IV: This stage came into operation in June, 1978, and all of the

twenty-seven contracts were scheduled to terminate at the end of the

calendar year. MEP IV contractors are employment and training agencies

such as the Kent Community Action PeograA, Kandu Industries, Jackson

County Departmentaof Social Services, and the Inter' - Tribal Council of

169
-38-

Michigan. .MEP IV was designed to be a $5.3 million component which

would create approximately 2,900 jobs. An Ainteresting feature of

MEP IV is that it permits up to 100 percent reimbursement for the wages

of participants in on-the-job-training. Like MEP III, MEP IV frees

the Michigan Department of Labor from the responsibility of finding

employers and screening program applicants.

As of September, 1978, slightly more than 80 percent of the $10 million

MEP program had been obligated, and it was anticipated that the entire appropriation would be obligated by the end of the fiscal year. An evaluation

of the program is scheduled for release by mid-December. The Michigan legislature has allocated $2.5 million for MEP in Fiscal Year 1979, but it appears

that much of the Urgency Michigan's political j'eaders felt in early 1977 has

eased.

The Michigan Youth Employment Clearinghouse. The Youth Employment Task

Force was created by Michigan's Speaker of the House Bobby D. Crim in May,

1977. Its membership included representatives from the legislative and executive branches, academia, organized labor and private citizen groups. The

fr

task force met for ten months, examined the ature and scope of the problem

' of youth unemployment in Michigan, and the 'produced two legislative proposals.

7

first proposal, which became law in September, 1978, was. for a clearinghouse of information about federal, state and local employment programs. Funding for the clearinghouse eventually consisted of $211,000 drawn from YEDPA.

The second proposal not yet enacted, was for a $20 million school completion

and work experience program.

When the Task For-de proposed the activation of a clearinghouse, it identified five problems that warranted correction: (I) Absence of in-depth impact , evaluation criteria; (2) Minimal cooperation and coordination among the federal, state and local public and private agencies involved with youth employment;

(3) Absence of shared information about successful youth programs; (4) Lack of

170
-39-

systeric accountability and legislative involvement with the more than $108

million in federal youth funds entering MichigAr; and (5) Lack of sufficient

effort to coordinate the State's role as a permapent partner with the federal

government in youth employment programs.

The task)force noted that as a result of these problems, current programs

remained shrouded in mystery, repeated each other's mistakes, failed to serve

some youths, and wasted taxpayers' dollars.

As finally enacted, the Michigan Youth Employment Clearinghouse will

operate within the Michigan Department of Labor. It will lect data on unemployment among people from 14 to 23 years, evaluate youth employment programs, and recommend ways to provide jobs to young people in Michigan. The

clearinghouse is scheduled to begin operation early in 1979.

The Failure of Federal and State Youth Employment Programs to Coordinate.

Coordination and cooperation among units of government are elusive ideals. They

remain ideals partially. because of the amount of energy that must be continuously expended to make them realLpies, and partially'because of territorial

boundaries governments impose on themselves and others. The early months of

1,977, though, provided an'unusual opportunity for cooperation between the fed-

,& eral and state governments in programming for youth employment. Yet, in the

experience of one staff member ofa CETA prime sponsor which received approximately $3 million in federal youth employment funds that year, attempts to coordinate federal with state funds that were becoming available for almost identical purposes were minimal. Vhen\Kent Community Action Program in Grand Rapids

111, received a MEP I grant for $276,875, the agency did coordinate services under

that grant with similar services it was providing under two federal YEDPAgrants% Staff of the operating agency, the CETA prime sponsor, and the Michigan

Uepartmentrof Labor worked together to develop

1 '71

rocess for assuring that

O
- 40 -

youths enrolled under the more liberal income guidelines of the State grant

would not later be deemed ineligible under the more restrictive federal income

guidelines. That example of cooperation is an isolated one, however, and was

totally dependent on the willingness of all.the parties to work together.

Needed instead are a set of provisions that would, initially at least, compel

parties to meet periodically to discuss such substantive issues as who should

be served, where in the state they should be served, what kinds of services

are most needed, and how such administrative barriers as conflicting federal

and state guidelines can be overcome.

Too Little, Too Late: Efforts to implement federal and state youth

employment programs demongtrated that the two levels of government also erected a common barrier to effective programming: insufficient time. The state

summer employment programs in 1977 were plagued by late start-up, inadequate

time for planning, and general failure to recognize that inadequate lead time

for state and local bureaucracies would, of necessity, delay the employment

of youths virtually until the end of the summer when most participants would

return to school. Every CETA prime spontsor has, at one time or another,

experienced these same problems of delayed legislation, unrealistic grand

i deadlines, demands for rapid start-up from the funding source, and inevitable

underenrollmentand underexpenditure of allotted funds. Despite annual exhort?. tations to avoid a repetition of last year's mistaked, the legislative and

executive branches of federal and state governments still cahnot seem to come

to grips with the simple but fundamental need for sufficient time to facilitate

4 rational planning procedures. The problems experienceFty Michigan in implementing

41( its youth emplpyment programs are thus to some extent a microcosm of

those experierced at the federal level by YEDPA.

172

9'

e
-41 -

First Steps in Coordinating Michigan and National Youth Employment Proams. The Michigan Youth Employment -Clearinghouse may herald the beginning

of change in cooperation between levels of government in the area of youth

employment. Improvements in the rrent fragmented situation may come about

if it can widely disseminate current and reliable information about existing

and pending federal, state and local programs; if it can propose specific

and achievable areas of potertial cooperation; and if it can exert the persistent energy requ.i.red to draw funding sources, operating agencies and youths

together to convince them that cooperation is in their self-interest.

No single effort, howeiver, can guarantee success. Other steps must be

taken. One such recent innovation by the Michigan Department of Labor der. serves recognition. The.Department is requiri gevery applicant for Fiscal

Year 1979 MEP funds and every applicant for Special Governor's Grant funds

under YEDPA to obtain written acknowledgement from the appropriate CETA prime

sponsor that the agency is applying for these monies. The signed acknowledgment form must accompany the applicant's proposals to Lansing. Applicants

must simultaneously proyide a copy of their proposals to the CETA prime sponsor. The prime'sponsor may then choose to evaluate an applicant's proposal,

using a form developed by the Michigan Department of Labor, and that evaluationmay.be incorporated by Oe State in reachiog its funding decisions. For

the first time, prime sponsors will then know the names of applicants for

other youth employment funds in their geographical jurisdictions. If informat ion is a key to federal-state cooperation in youth employment programs,

the recent innovations just described'may unlock at least one door_

2. Cooperative Assessment and the Quest for an Overall Manpower System:

The Case of the Muskegon Consortium

The Muskegon/Oceana Consortium has been moving towards the goal of a

central cooperative assessment for a number 4 years. This movement was,'in

173

NfMINI
/1- 42 -

part, an answer to the Federal and State emphasis on the need for increased

linkages an0 intergovernmental coordination and in part an effort to organize

the Title I agencies into a comprehensive system. or the Muskegon/Oceana

Consortium, this move has been a long hard process, replete with many political battles with the state of Michigan and the Federal government,, which

wanted the Michigan Employment Security Commission (MESC) to serve as such a

focal point, and with the competing subgrantees who were holdovers from the

categorical grant programs of the sixties and claim that such centralization

is an infringement on their rightful territory.

Centralizing the "Front-end" of the System. Until 1978, each subgrantee

.1. funded under Title I CETA'had its own informal assessment process. Only occasionally were standard, formal tests utilized. A potential participant would

enter the office of any Title I subgrantee, and would receive an assessment on

the premises. The participant would usually be given whatever services that

particular subgrantee had to offer. Because of this persisting tendency for

each program to as a self-contained entity, participnts were r'arely referred to another 'subgrantee where a par'ticular need might better be served.

This ineffective an inefficient system was challenged in 1978 when the.

Muskegon/Oceana Consortiucting on its "intergovernmentai coordinatipn and

linkages" mandate, began.to centralize the system's components. The Muskegon/

Oceana Prime Sponsor-chose as a first step in developing CETI into a comprehensive system in Muskegon.to centralize the "front-end," or 1 assessment process,

of the newly developing comprehensive .system. The most dramatic issue raised

by this policy centered around the que tion of which agelicy would serve as the

focal point for intake. The Congottium chose to house the assessment process

in the Opportunities Industrialization Center (01C).

In 1978, the front-end of the comprehensive Title I system was thus put

1

At*
-113 -

into place with the creation of the centralized pre-service assessment; and

combined witty the development of the "case conference." After assessment and

ti certification, participants ate thus referred to one of the subgrantees as a

result of a weekly conference attended by all agencies active in,Title I.

Agencies tend to participate through altruism, self-interest, and the expert's

drive to communicate information into the system. In 1978, then, control

was gained over the front-end of the CETA Title I system by centralizing the

assessment process and then by coordinating how participants are referred to

the individual subgrantees.°

Hitching the Middle and End to the Front Of the System. In 979, the

CETA Title I system will become even more comprehensive with the institution

of "facilitators" and the addition of a "job placement conference." All subgrantees will again participate in a job placement .conference--a mechanism 1

through which all participants shall be discussed on a case by case basis and

then referred out of the CETA system.

The facilitators, employees o! the Consortium itself, deal mainly with

the middle of the Title I syste1 by monitoring and assisting in the movement

of participants through the components of the CETA Title I system. In 1979,

. ,

. then, the Title I system will become more comprehensive: just as the frontend has already been centralized, so the middle will then be monitored through

the facilitators, and the end coordinated through the job placement conferelpe.

This trend is expected to continue with the eventual introduction of a posttest assessment for the purpose of quality control. Programs that prove more

effective in the testing of clients are then supposed to fare better in sill,-

sequent funding competition. Not surprisingly, the driving force behind these

consolidation efforts has.been the executive leadership of the prime sponsor.

The cooperative-assessment system was seen as the lynchpio to the implementa175
- 44 -,

tion of that system.

Emulating the Title I System in Title III. 'Since the Department of

Employment and Training (DET) was.primarily concerned with centralizing its

overall manpower system in 1978, it is not surprising that in its plan DET

patterned its Title III priorities after Title I, and focused here too on

program implementation rather than policy innovation. Cooperative assessment

again was used to "line up the ducks." It was also utilized to create a pool

0

of youth from which the Title III subgrantees could draw their clients.

,de The original Title III plan called for the creation of a series of specialized subgrantees to which.youth would travel to receive services. Such a

system would eliminate duplication of effort and streamline the delivery of

services. DET would create Title III system from the start, and thereby eliminate the inevitable problems that occur at a later point in time when independent agencies are compelled to surrender autonomy to bripg about the advantages of a centralized system. The problems associated with this approach

killed it from its inception.4 Youths are not as mobile as adults which made

it difficult to travel to the various components. And since a wealth of

assessment data already existed on youths from the State of Michigan and from

C local educational agencies, launching,a new centralized intake process would

yield fewer advantages. The alternative was then explored of bi-inging a comprehensive system to the non-mobile clients. This would be done by housing

the entire Title III syitem in the intermediate school system. The Muskegon

Area Intermediate School District (MAISD). had its own overall procedures and

for a long time had handled youth employment and training through its Title I in-school pragrams. After protracted negotiations MAISD and DET found themselves unable to mesh their trio systems, and in February 1978 discussions

a., broke down. .DET managed to line up some schools to run the Title III program,

4 176'
Ne.

but now d) d not have an.overall.plan.

Gaining Manpower Access'to the Schools through Sympathetic Educators.

During that spring, however, DET took several, steps that enabled it to coordinate more smoothly with its LEA's. Closer linkages were established with

those groups within.the schools who are accorded more flexibility in dealing

with disadvantaged youths--Adult Edpcation, Alternative Education, and counselors working with the population defined in YEDPA. Channeliiig resources

through these groups proved mutually beneficial, since they lacked sufficient

resources to reach out into the community effectively. Furthermore, Adult

Education and Alternative Education staffers have argued for years that the

traditional school system is not effective in meeting the needs of the Title

III population and that education for these people needs to be directly re- lated to the real world of work. The interests of these .groups.and DET thus

meshed neatly on how the Title III resources should be allocated. The school

bu'reaucracy is not designed primarily for under or over achievers, regardless

of their problems. Consequently, every under or over achiever that exists

ris a failure of the system to many of the counselors; such failures attack

the counselors personally and professionalllitecause they cannot adequately

serve this constituency. Title III gave them an opportunity to turn these

failures into successes.

Cooperative Assessment--First Step Toward a Title III System? Asse,Isment

then becamea useful tool to assess the abilities, achievements, and future

goals of potential participants. DET implemented assessment a pre- and

post-test basis to measure improvement as well as to institute quality,control.

The Hartman and Rokeach value survey instruments.wer6 ins uted to an a . closer view. of the defined population. Monthly participant eval tions and

supervisor evaluations were also begun after several months.

177
-4 -46-

al Despite these formal and infgrmal adjustments, the Opportunities lotustrialization Center (01C) still serves asAlie ass4sment center. The schools

remain restless over this arr,ngement, 14-meeit is difficult to move the youths

out of school for-two or three hours of assessment, especially when testing

materials are available on site. In ,addition, the schools point out that they

have access to professional test givers and feel that they are in a better

position to administer such work in ihhat they regard asa properly cerfirtSrredd

atmosphere.' The quest for a comprehensive m npower system thus resides in-ia

state of uneasy equilibrium, but DET with one year of YEDPA under its belt

is re-evaluating cooperative assessment in light of ergenerally successful

n

1978 experience with Title 1)1. . 3. Manpower Moves to Develop and Extend Local Educational Agreements:

The Case of the, Lansing Tri-County Regional Manpower Consortium.

Zo, Early Lansing Consortium Linkages with Local Educational Agencies (LEA's).,

In-school youth employingal.orograms were initially established, in the, Lansing

Tri-County Region prior to the enactment of the Comprehensive Employment and

Training Act (CETA) of"197 3 These initial prOms were funded through the

Office of Economic Opportunity (6E0) and estabE3shed as part of the area

Neighborhood Youth Corps (NYC) programs. Implementation of these NYX, in-school

o

programs in the Region was the responsibilityibf the Lansjng School Distr het

and thus provided early linkages in the Region between federally Funded yOuth

employment programming and LEA's.

With the\enactment of CETA, the NYC programs were dissdlved in 44'1974.

0, A framework had been established; howeyer, for implementing in-school youth

employment programs through LEA's, ihd,consequently the Consortium- decided to

continue these 'programs under the CETA prithe sponsor Structure in FY1975,

The new program was 'established under Title I of CETA and Called Youth

.Employment AsstItance PrOgranc ()TAP). The Orpose, aontent-and implzntation

0

dr
-47-

structure of the new YEAP remainedsimilar to the old NYC programs. YEAP was

established as a Title I work experience program providing income maintenance

to primarily-economically disadvantaged youth so tht.they would remain 'in

. 0°School: For reasons of administrative and fiscal-feasibility the program

continueto be centrally administered for,the entire Tri-County Region by

the Lansing School District. FUndtng for the program has remained between

'.$260,000 and $300,000 and° approximately 400 to 500 in-school, youth have been

ierved in each yearcbfw program operatiom between FY 1975 and FY 1979..

0

I . New Youth Programming'Under the Youth EmUioyment and Demonstrgtion Projects Act (YEDPA) of 1977: With the passage of .the YEDPA in 1977, a wide

range of new youth program alternatives were established under Title III of

4 CETA. The most pertinent of these new programs to locallEA in-sch8b1 program-

, mingWas the YouthrEmploymentand TrAding Program (YETP). One sp ecial mandate of thenew legislation significantly invblved local LEA's in CETA youth

programming. This was the requirement that prime sponsors earmark no less

than 22 percent oft. their.YETP funds for programs developed cooperatively with

LEA's for in-school youth. 4,..

' . 4

; 4.4 a a

I i3 addi;i' o thistfunding mandate, another speCial requirement of YETP

. was particularly interesting torarea lEA's, namely, an ellphasiboh providing

more extensive activities and,sdrvices for addressing the total emplOyment

needs of youth. For in- schooj youth theleneedsmere.to be addressed through

a 41ewl4created program t,§ncept designed specifically for YETP in=scKool Pro-

, 66 ,

grams. This unique-YETP concept was career employment experience, or career-

. oriented work experience coupled with transition

, services, which, at a minimum,

, included career information, counseling and guidance, and placement services.

. . . . . .

.

. , , A Befo.re-the.enac ent of YEDW the Cortsortium and the Lansing School District

viere in incorporating concepts similarto those introduced In YETP

/

4

sf
- 48

into the Title I Youth.Employment Assistance Program (YEAP). Resource limitations and the more urgent short-run need to provide an income maintenance

,txpe o f mirk experience program As an incentive to keep disadvantaged youth

4 in school, however, prevented the implementation of there concepts.

Because prior consideration had been given to the incorporation of career,

related work experience into area youth progrims, the Consortium and local

LEA's readily adapted to the concepts contained in YETP in-school programs.

The YETP sWlemental funding and YEAP structure likewise proNiided the opportunity to introduce these'concepts into area in-school youth employment programs. Approximately 77 percent of-the Consortium's $613,349 YETP allocation

was allocated to LEA's. The only activity chosen to be operated under-the

*V,

in-school YETP was career employment experience. The major emphasis of YEAP

remained work experience for the puRjoose of youth income maintenance; the new

emphasis of YETP was to provide career-related work experience and employment

services for the purpose of improving youth skills and furthering career

development.

Decentralization of In-School_ Youth Programs. The supplemental funding

received for YETP nox only provided the Consortium with the opportunity to

/ enhance the range and quality of employment and training programs for youth-,

but also to decentralize imolementatioA of youth programs from what previously

had, been a centrally administered Lansing School District YEAP. The possibilityr-Separtely administered school district youth programs in the Region

was discussed at the inception of CETA for the'Title I YEAP. Such locardecentrali4ation was determined not to be feasible, however, because of the

limited funds available and the consequently limited.administrative capacity

of tNe'individua) distri6ts. In FY 1978 the YETP supplemental funding allocation for in-school programs was based, therefore, on the desire to provide

.1
-..

01, -49-

sufficient funds to the major area school districts so that in-...school yOuth

programs could be administered separately in each county in the Region and

the City of Lansing. Funding allocations for area jurisdictions were based on

the Consortium's Residential Distribution Index (ROI), and separate in-school

youth programs were established by the Clinton, Eaton and Ingham County Intermediate SchOol Districts and Lansing School District for implementing both

Title I YEAP and Title III VEIN...)

Youth ProgramPlarining. LEA's were integrally invol ed din

area youth program planning, particularly YETP in-school program tanning

through their representation on the Consortium Youth Planning Council (YPC)

established in the latter part of 1977 for the

ca. purpdse of yoUth program review

apd comet nt and through-the Consortium decision to allocate the 5 percent

planning rant permitted under YETP to LEA program deliverers instead of prime

sponsor staff or other delivery agents. This total planning grant allocation

of $39,580, appropriated about three months prior to the January 1978 YETP

implementation, was seen to be essential for devising the type of in- school

youth program delivery system envisioned by the Consortium. The EA's responI( "...

J.. sible for individually developing their YETP in-school program were allowed '5 s flexibility in the use of their planning allocationn, and all chose to hire

planning, and consequentlyjperational, stiff prior to program implementation.

. Some LEA's additionally chose to allow their new staff. to take advantage of

YETP

A

technical training opportunities'in the months, prior to actual program

. operations. All area LEA's involved in n-school youthprogram planning used

their planning grants for YETP plan research and development and Consortium

Request for Proposal (RFP) completion. TwNdditional products of this YETP

in-school programplanning phase were the preparation of a iommunity Resource

Inventory of area youth programs by all area L.Vi program deliverers, and the

181\
50' development of a.10 percent mixed-income knowledge development experiment by

the Lansing School District.

YETP in School Program Implementation: The LEA Agreements. The 77 percent appropriation of YETP funds to t School District and the Clinton,

Eaton and Ingham Intermediate School Districts was allocated through financial

f - LEA agreements. No significant difficulties were encountered in using the

standard Consortium contractual format as the basis for the development of

these LEA agreements. The final LEA agreements were similar for all program

deliverers, and became the standard operating documents for YETP in-school

ep programs.

Career Emplioyment Experience: TransiticAServices. Consortium LEA agreemists require that YETP iK-schobl program deliverers at a minimum provide the

following transition services as part of their career employment experience

program: Counseling and guidance, career information, and placement services.

Other xelevant ser ,yices are provided by th)school districts, either directly

. )

,. 1 or throu'g'h referrals, as they are needed by participants. Each in-school

program is structured in such a way that LEA program delivererS and the individual schools oe'schbol districts within their intermediate districts coordi- - nate .the delivery ofprogram services. The main link in this delivery of

1114, services is between YETP staff and schoolcbased counselors.

An important part of the on -going ,counseling and guidance services-provided to ticipants is the assessment they receive upon entrance VIto the .eR , O .program. ETP staff and individual school counselors are both involved, for «.0 the most part, in this assessment process. During this initial assessment,

participants are"tested Ar career, interests, and their program needs are

identified. These interests and nee

?I s along with other .information sucAas

work experience placement are recorded in each participan'ts "employability

0

lap.,

4

10
16.

f

plan." Employability plans are then used critinually in the on-going counsel-

. ing of participants, and change as participant interests, needs, and program

involvement change. The employability plans do not extensively document participant program involvement and vary in content among program deliverers, but

t they are considered useful for documenting and monitoring the qualitative dimensions of program participation. In the first year of program implementation,

these plans have also been an effeCtive tool for maintaining a record of individual participant performance, and progr4 and career decision-making progress.

Perhaos the most important services affecting participant program performance and progress are job information services. These services are provi4ed

in all in-school programs,throu h h career information seminars organized in

each school or school district YETP staff. Participants are usually in

these seminars for one or two hours per week and are paid. the minimum hourly

wage for their attendance. Participants receive a wide range of employment

services in these seminars in such,areas as career exposure, career decision-

' making, job finding skills, job application and resume,preparpation, job inter-.

view techniques, work environment, and interpersonal and commwnication skills.

Career seminars are well received by participants. Initial pre- and post-test

results-of the CohsortiUm's knowledge development experiment generally indicate

that sutdents do inOeed benefit directly from the services and instructiog

provided. YETP staff likewise feels that the seminars are valuable to the

' participants, particularly the disadvantaged and those who have never been

employed or are discouraged from seeking employment. LEA program administrators also feel that the seminars are an effective and successful way of intro-,

ducin4 career education to the participants', curriCul-um--a need, they feel,

(which extends -far beyond those youths who constitute the CETA-eligible-popula-

, tion,

4-

;183 44.

ts.

. t
k- 52 -

Combined placement efforts for traKsitioning pai-ticipants into unsubsidized employment are undertaken by YETP staff and by the placement services'of

individual schools and districts. Unlike other CETA programs, however no

specific placement component has been built into the programs. The placement

rate for in-school program participants thrOugh August 1978, terefore,:.was a

modest 10percent.. ,LEA program administrators point out, though, that this

placement rate is misleading, since it only accounts for those placementt

whith took place immediately at program completion. other participants who

graduate and obtain employment during the summer, or later in this year, or are

transferred to SPEDY and then placed, are not inclded in this total. The

number of placements Ln these categories they feel, are substantial. Nevec-

\

theless, area IAA's realize the need for increased emphasis on participant

placement at program termination. The, majoi barriers hindefing the effectiveness of placement efforts are institutional and financial. Some program administrators feel that presently LEA placement services are not directly compatible with CETA,program placement expectations. Finandial constraints restrict

them from structuring special program placement components that could effectively match program termination with placement' into unsubsidized, jobs.

- 'Work Experiencd, In the YETP in-school career employment experience pro-,

.grams, work experience positions, are, for the Most part,*entry,jevel jobs for

which participants receive the hourly minimum,wage. The average 'number of

hours worked each week is usually ten- All positions are faceted in'the public

I . . non-profit sector, and, where feasible, are related to Participant career in-

. terest in accord With thejntended career development and entrancement goals of

0

'the YETP"careetWoymcnt .experience activity.

. . %-. . ..,

.. 4, Due to the r4;'i,iltriplemenstat on of YETP in.FY 1978 and, therefore, a relaCtively short nine months in op ation, work expe lence positions consis?ent,

?Sr

NEC

/01
-53-

with the legMlative intent of YETP hive noebeen develved in all instances.

instead, LEA's .have relied on traditional sources and types of youth employt as a basis f .the establishment of YETP. As seen.in Table 3, the distri4 bution of participant worksites in Title III YETP in-school programs is similar to_that for Title I YEAP. A shift has occurred though from worksites in

schools to sites at government locations. The location of approximately onefourth of YETP sites with gover ent (as opposed to about one-tenth in YEAP)

seems to suggest that LEA's a e increasingl'y developing sites in the'one allowable sector whichh411, ffers the greatest numbr- of work experience arl)ernatives.

The data ia Table 4, however, does not appear to completely substantiate the

effects of such a shift. While the percent distribution of clerical occupations declined in YETP, thepercent of maintenance /custodial positions increased. The total f/or theSe two categories was about 2.5 perceht lower in

0

YETP than YEAP. No/etheless, a.slightdnorease of about 2 percent did take

place from YEAP to YETP in the technical iccupations category. Although the . movements are slight, the direCtions indicated in the data seem positive. But

4 after only nine months of program implementation any conclusion from this data,

other than the appearance that the Title I YEAP structure was used to some

degree to meet the rapidimplementation demands of YETP, would be prema5-irg:

Program deliverers indicate that other significant Problems'also.have

limited the potential .quality or worksites. Not all participants define a

career interest or goal upon entering the program. _For these participants the

basic qualitative aspects of thejr work experience saras acquiring better

work habits and expoture to a work situation are valuable. fn oases where

careerrelated Work experience can be arranged, transportation difficulties

sometimes prevent.th4 match. Such4roblems are particularly disconcerting to

rurally- located LEA's.- the most common and most serious problem ex1 85
TABLE 3

a PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF LEA PARTICIPATION WORKSITES

BY CETA TITLE AND PROGRAM.: FY 1978

Program

Worksite

CETA Title I: YEA CETA Title III: YETP

LEA's LEA's

A

/I- % # . % .. School 205 77.6% , 380 .65.0%

Government* 30 11.4% ' 153 26.0%

1 Non-Profit Community

Service,Ofganization . 29 11.0% 50 9.0%

Other t. f

0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total /64 , 100.0% 583 100.0%

TABLE 4

PERCENT DI1STRIBUTION OF LEA PARTICIPANT OCCUPATIONS

BY CETA TITLE ARO PROGRAM: FY 1978

Program

Occupations, -'

-- CETA Title I: YEA CETA Title 'III: YETP

LEA's

.

. LEA's

.. -- 6 # # %

Clerical 91 31.0% 146 . 15.0%

Mai ntenance/Custod fal_ 105 35.7% 229 35.3%

4 Recreation . . 14 14.8% .28 4.8%

Teaching' .34 11.5% 57 Al 9.8%

Laborer 0 0.0% 4 0.7%

0

Technical* ------...., . 36 12.2% 68(0 14.4%

ServiCeas 14. 4.8% 35 . 6.0%

Other . 0 0:0% *0 0.0%

Total 264 100.0% 583 100.0%

; *Technical work experience occupations include jobs,in which the participant

receives exposure to specific skilled occupational areas primarily as aides

ig such areas as nursing, printing, library work, therapy,.farming and landscapjhg.

4

S 1 8 4r.
-55

pressed by LEA program deliverers is the lim tation of the career employment

experience activity to the public non-profit sector. Such a restrictiNprecludes the development of worksites in the private sector where, LEA's feel,

the most alternatives for career-related work experience are located.

nevertheless, LEA's are aware thatVhe emphasis in YETP, both through

Consortium policy and federal constractual obligations, remains on careerrelated work experience. School officials exptess confidence that the full

incorporation of YETP concepts and activities into LEA delivery systems will

evolve over a period of time. Thedtpresent YETP in-school program structure

of combined transition services an4 work experience in their view generally is

the best approach to insuring the development of the career employment experience program activity.

Academic Credit. Consortium LEA agreements emphasize the.need to provide

academic,credit in YETP, and encourage granting such credit, where feasible,

for program participation or for competencies derived from such participation.

In' all instances, in4shool YETP program deliverers are responsible for arranging academic credit through the school districts in their jurisdictions.

The City of Lansing School District (LSD), the only stilool district not

indirectly represented by an intermediate school di St [ct in the deliver& of

a YETP in-school program, is the only program deliverer which has established

a uniform prdcedure for granting academic credit/to YETP partiCipants. In the

LSD program, participants typically receive two credits for satisfactory completion of carter information seminars and work experience; Participants may

Ills° receive one additional credit for remedial course work related to an

employment objective. The three intermediate school district program d4ter-

( ers arrange for participant academic -credit

. through theAtchool districts in

their jurisdictions. Arrangements for acatlic.credit have not been, established

, . . , . .

. I- 18"
-56-

in all of the programs of the intermediate school districts, since such poli-

, cies are not acceptable to all school districts in the inermedi.ate areas.

Some school districts feel that granting academic credit 'foe these activities

would dilute their present academic requirements for high school education.

This stance has created some difficulty in incorporating YETP career information seminars into the curriculum of participants. It has likewise created

situations in which career seminars can only be offered after school hours,'

thus reducing participant attendance and the overall effectiveness of this

transition service. In those school districts where academic credit has been

arranged, it is usually granted only for participation in career seminars.

At the intermediate school district level of YETP implementation, the instances

of granting academic credit for work experience participation or the gaining

of competencies have been minimal)

a,

) Program Problems and Prospects for Fiscal Year 1979. Although LEA program deliverers, like all youth program deliverers, are expecting to make

difficult operational adjustments at the outset of FY 1979, they remain confidentt of continuing to move present programs tow rd the concepts contained in

YETP i'n-school programs. LEA's point out, nonetheless, that many of the pro-

./. grammatic and institutional problems experienced in FY 1978 will persist in

the next year. Programmatically, local, expectations for YETP work experience

activities regain high, but alternatives for developing direct YETP and private sec or links for improving the quality of work experience do not seem

\ apparent. Institutionally, the effectiveness of incorporating the career education and placement services of YETP into school curriculums and adTinistra-

. tions at the local'school and intermediate school district levels continues v-

.11 to depend primarily on the acceptance and priority the programs recivirin the

school system.

188
Oa - 57

LEA's are also .looking at other prograM alternatives within their own

systems to further improve in-school CETA youth programs and to coordinate

such efforts more effectively with established school - based °empioyment and

training programs: Unfortunately, the ability of LEA's to bring about such

improvements and coordination has been impaired in,FY 1979 due to the

reduction in funding and to their limited planning 'capacitty. But almost all

Lansing LEA program deliverers see viable opportunjties for change and future

coordination,, particularly in relation t4 vocattal education and cooperative education prograds. The Lansing School District, the most experienced

'tea LEA youth program deliverer, presently incorporates a vocational educaibneriSsrooM training component into its career employment experience program. .Thus, some participants not only receive related employment services

and work experience, but also career-related skill training. Given the right

circumstances, Lansing School District plans to use its CETA program portun-

. ities as a foundation for expanding these present activities and eve ually

aidi.ng the transition of participants into unsubsidized employment even while

,

they,are still in school. Under such aoplan Lansing School District would

operate afour-part program delineated by school year and designed for economically disadvantaged youths:r In essepce, this plan would include: (1)using

the Title I YEAP as an income maintenance progrtm for eligible 9th graders

. * . ., .4. during their first year of program participation; (2) transiioning YEAP piiti-

(

cipents to YETP career employment experience activities is the second year;

. 4. (3) subsidizing one-half of the, third year of program participation through

.CETA for career employment experience and the other half through vocational

. , educationfunds for specific participant skill training; and (4) transitioning'

participants in their last year of high schoot into nsubsidtzgd private sector employment; or, public if apprOpriate, through the LEA cooperative or dis1 80
I

O

tributive educ tion program. Other area LEA's envision similar programming;

f) however, their program designs are not as far advanced. Given'the present

4 s funding and plAnning limitations., the movement of all the Lansing LEA's in

such directions will be hamp ered but ndt- stopped in FY 1979.

0- 4. Corporate, Union, Educational, and Manpower Cooperation in Support

of Youth imploymentsanci Traihing Programs: The ,Case of the Detroit

Metropolitan Area. 0,i, looking at Corp rate, union, and educational cooperation Within

the Detrbit metropolitan area, the,word that immediately surfaces is "turf."

Such tugging and hauling in opp6sifedirections should not be surprising,

especially'in an area occupied by such an immense number-of organizations and

people. However, current initiatives areFingIng-aboUt some Momentum Mr-,

increased cooperation, thou*not.as a result of any grand design or any single

influential coordinator. These init-iit.ives le for the most part spontaneously organized and developed.

The Role of the Schools. In March of 1977, Superintendent Arthur Jeffers son of the Detroit Public Schools (DPS) laid-out "a framework for improved

relations between the schools and t rivate sector, in a proposal entitled

\)

P

,0( . New Directions.. The thrust of this- program is,'whenever'appropriate, to com-

° bine various educational offerings with previbusly identffied jobs in the pri-

. vate.sectdr. The plan calls for improved vocational education'which will be

augmented by five,area.vocational education centers, occupational information.,

relevant to lotal labor market conditions, exploratory experience in the private sector, and improved guidance and counseling sensitive to'the world of

wohc: "New Directions" has received endorsethents from the Mayor and New

. ,

, . Detroit, Inc. The litter's Economic/Employment and Education Committee, whose

4 membership includes some of Detroit's most influential private and public*"

, O

., sector officials, gave considerable' impetus to this initiative. For its part

.

, . V

, v ,

.,

, 4 % ' , $ ..

. C 1.90.

- 1/4
p

-59-

General Motors launched a program to place Detroit Public School counselors

itt

in an industrial setting and thereby sensitiz e them to the employment demands

of the marketplace. The mayor and the Detroy Public Schools' have now defined

the mission of the City's Renaissance High School to tie it more closely to

* the employment needs of the private sector. All in all, "thew Directions" thus

seems headed in the right,direction.

The Role of Business. In a separate but related initiative, General Motors

Corporation has moved forward with two innovative ideas that will inevitably

i- ncrease cooperatiOn between the public and private sectors. It recently initiated on a statewide basis the Joint Council on Economic Growth which has as.

its major thrust career education. The Council consists primarily of corporate representatives, but also includes, union', members. Willard Cheek, Public

Relations'Head of General Motors, provided the group with its first check for

$15,000 and has been spearheading the di-ive. The Detroit Chamber,of Commerce

has'also informally pledged its cooperation. The nonprofit Council's purpose .

will be to make recommendations on resources allocated to lraups for career

:education. ' While the group's efforts ripmaln in the planning stage, its inter-

.est in encourAgi a netwoTAIlkanizations throughout Michigan to promote

.

4 4 "Career educat is a significant departure irrhscope from more limi.fe ast

. , , ,

. efforts.. .1 ".

4.." ' ,1,) 4.,

. % , % , addition'

' GenetiWHOtors andSeventy,Thousadd and One, Incorporated- $

.. . -

.'' .

. . ..':- ' " ,.+' bra ; W il t 'soonoopen a pre7emp4oymant bra.; 0 ing center for oin-schoOl and out-of-

. . l- . , . , school youths. Th4 Cent i112,prefDee youths'fdr specififtjobs: Fundimgrtr/- 2. 2, f i f -e- ., t .4 ,t

. ;AO' ,t .,,, 1' ' -0, y f 6

. the center will come Mitial1101-6T Genera Motors which will cOntrkbutp L,

, 4 . ., - .. 44. .. ., - 1 IL

:

, $500,000'ove,.. r

, s:., $ .? yeafis. m;.-- 1 ` :,e ...ti- The Mi.qhig;iDeoart ,, 4G4r :if 4`"

)

1 nor's Office, and the City Of DetrottAinppar Yeeartm ar4,p4n06111 'exr:1.,e, -

. petted to contribute as well0;as"Bdrroughs, Ford flotor:Comparly,anti Chry0&..

. 1.. /-

4 A I.

, . a .

4
- ti

%

_ . An advisory ,boa d including representatives froMet'ilese public and private

institutions has .een organized tb guide the center' s development. The Program will be start soon and will be located in the New Center area near,

?Wayne State University. ., Another organization reflecting the views and the stance' of,thd private. , . sector on manpower issues is the National Alliance of Bupt6essmen NAB). The ,.

..

...-` . 4.4A- .

- , Metro Detroit NAB operation was, for X11 intents and purposes,t-"jnoperative" ',;.,-

, ',,, . during the mid seventies. During that time it was not gi4i, the a,ttention

° .- by the "Big Three" that it enjoyed when Initially' organized. The morale of

. . , -..,

0. staff charged w4h keeping, the operation al A:lKIa., sa§ged as it re ceived 1 it- .

, . .

- ., .11 ,

. , . t le guidance and ,supervi's ion. . Howeverow,i th the sincreased emphas is ,by the'_, feder'al Pgovet,,nment on programs 'for the d isidvantaged, youths, aid-veterans --,

,.

. . , a . three of the principal target groups `iervice'd by NAB --pressure been brought".

. . .

, .

... to bear.on the "Big Three" to reiital e Metro Detroit Office, T.hi1 pres- /

. . ., .t, I \'1 i5 2 t ... sure came principally from the.National / NP43., ffi, 'in Waskingtonl,'D:S.' which ,

. I .

'argued t1'tat the socially respons4ible image f the,"hometown'ok thelig :Ttree',,, 4 . 4

ei N.., % ,. , e % 41 4,1 wet& .I.N.fe..i..i?g\tmcause of ..itslimited NAfl operation. After Apost twp yiars 'ig. .°°, 05 . ,. ,r, , .% V 1 "*"

': '`A ' m

. .4" . plp,pninr9:; negt. igt ion , thelOg. Th,tee,t res-pOnded .s" Genera i 4;"°) ,

. /4.2. ...

, . e .

., . u 0 A : ... ' :: ' iY,'"`''s -,, / 4 . tis- ,' S. . - , . ..,.

-..",4, 0 07 ,

;... ki

. Motes toontributtior a. ector_ and Ford,110 Chai rman- to-line;cevital i zed Metr..9 -

4 ' 40*,. " ' a' 4 t N., * . , Or- 70 '

44; ii.

'4 . si.,, _., " . , , . D'etroik NAB'.. The off e ;gas mover to detrEit's New Center area, and its staff

. ' ,i- 4 °, ..'f I ,wiemet. 4ta . * I .i.

° i. , 144s; qxparided, 1$

. I . . .

I .... . . . '' The Role of Labor.' The labor untons too have seen the need to' respond to-,./

. 0

4 4 ..... '' ''' youth unemployment with rcreased cooperation. -They are, however, leery of

expanded federal. programs in-light of their increased minimum wage reqUirements.

..

. 4

.0 These stipulationp are viewed as having a dubjoas impact on the rights that

to N. ' the union has gained for skilled and unskilled laborers.' They are saki to

, $

feel more comfortable coopera ting in manpower efforts when they have played

111 v
a decision-making,r0e, so perhaps it is not surOrising that the labor unions

have chosen to involve themselves in local community work-education councils.

In the Detroit metropolitan area, two work-education councils existOne in

southeastern Michigan which serves the western half of Wayne County and the

other in the central Detroit area. These councils are comprised of area business; labor, education and government 'representatives who are undertaking to

increase cooperation between the sectors in order to stimulate more and im4 proved programs that transition youths from schools and training to work. The

AFL-CIO representative on oae'of these councils is functioning as ,iice-presi=

0:

dent of the board. The U.A.W. and the Communication Workers of the World are

A also participating. Labor has seen the need to establish linkages, and appears

to view the neutral forum provided the_rnthly meetings-of the work-educa-

: tioh council as an appropriate medium through which.-to act. Nationally,,21

communities are experimenting wish such work-education councils under the

aegis of the National Manpower Institute. Even at this'early stage in their

development, interesting differences have emerged in the priorities set by the

two Detroit Councys that are working, in such different economic and employment environments. : In suburban Livonia) ,for example, the Council has found

that it needs a resource directory to draw together the,numerobs resources

already available, while in central Detroft the indigenous Council quickly

agreed on the importance of focusing on job creation.

New Federal Initiatives Involving, the Private Sector Gravitate to Detroit

in the Pilot Stage. Detroit was an early winner in the grApt competition for

funds available under the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project (YIEPP).

Private sector involvement in the YIEPP program began during the planning

stage in November, 1977 with- a substantial commitment from numerous companie4s

throughout the metropolitan 'area- to.provide several thousand-parl-time and

193 .
full-time Yobs to youths participating in the program.

Unfortunately, the full potential of the commitment has yet to be fully

developed. lh Tes initial five months, Detroit's YIEPP program has only

placed a small number of thwapproximately 4,000 youths enrolled in the program with private sector organizations and businesses. This can be attributed

largely. to two factors. First, a delay of several months ensued in placing

enrolled youths with private-for-profit organizations until an adequate plan

could'be formulated to deal with the substitution issue. Second, confusion

arose over the length of time a youth's salary could be subsidized by the

Federal government if, the individual worked for a private- for- profit organization. Priqr to the program's inception, private sector representatives were

under the impression that the YIEPP program would pay all of the wages earned

by those youths participating in the program who were assigned to.private-forprofit businesses. When it was learned that the private-for-prOit employer

would have to begin paying a percentage of the YIEP? emplqyee's wages after

a specified period of time, some private sector employers who had planned to

participate in the program reconsidered and. subsequently withdrew.

Although all of the YIEPP projects were shutdown during September and

part of October 1978, it is expected that YIEPP officials will call upon organizations like New Detroit and the Greater Detroit Chamber of Commerce to assist

in increasing the number of youths placed with private sector organizations

when the program becomes operational again. Thus, the potential for increasing

q private sector involvement in YEDPA in 1979 through the YIEPP program looks

promising.

Private sector involvement in YEDPA through YETP has been limited. Chrysler Learhing, Inc., a subsidiary of ChryslerCorporation, represents the only

major involvement by a private sector firm in the YETP program. Chrysler has

194
- 63 -

three YETP programs which deal with in-school and out-of-school youths. To

increase private sector involvement in YETP programs, some manpower experts

who work with employers feel that greater efforts will 114ve to be made to sell

the pi..ogram'and to show prospective businesses how they can successfully

apply. Many potential contractors are not comfortable with the restrictions

. which are placed on the YETP programs. Others do not know how to deal with

the knowledge development component, insurance requirements, various reimbursement categories, and equipment expenses connected witg the YETP programs.

Additional ordtnizations representing or reflecting the views of the

private sector which have been involved with.YEDPA are the Greater Detroit

Chamber-of Commerce, the Centi.el Business District Association and New Detroit,

Inc. All three were involved in late 1977 in contacting and securing the

0 several thoUsand privtte qector job commitments needed to complete Detroit's

proposal for YIEPP funding. Throughout the subsequent year, New Detroit's

Employment/Economic Action Committee, chaired by Thomas A. Murphy, Chairman

of the Board of General Motqrs Corporation, closely monitored the progress

and .problems of'YIEPP%

Not only did the City of Detroit win one of the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Projects, but it also became an early proving ground for the new

Private Sector Initiatives Progr:am (PSIP). CODM began its version of PSIP,

along with thirty-four other coTmunities in August 1978. Like YIEPP, this new

mechanism is intended partly to strengthen relations between CETA and the

business community. Both awards underscore the extent to which Detroit'S

private sector is at least groping towards a more effective relationship with

'education,'training, and manpower programs.

In assessing the current level of private sector cooperation, it appears

that, independent moves are afoot and are in need of a focal, point. The new

V 195 e`
Private Sector Initiatives Program (PSIP - is shaping up.to be another vehicle.

Under the Department of Labor, PSIP is intended to strengthen relationships

between CETA and the business community. Nationally, 400 million dollars mill

be allocated for each of the next two years to encourage the development of

more jobs.in the private sector. The PSIP will be augmented by Private Industry

Councils (PIC's) that wilt be composed of private business and labor 'representatives. The National. Alliance of BusinesSmen (NAB) has been identified in

the legislation to provide technical. as5istance to prime sponsors in impl.ement-

. ing the program.

Mayor Coleman young has recommended..to the City of Detroit Manpower Department (CODM) that PSIP be tied very clOsely to his economic develbpment

focus for Detroit. CODM has identified potential council members but the prof

IP gram is still in an early stage of development. The Wayne County (balance

of county) prime sponsor has moved forward with at least a framework for PSIP:

The Work-Education Coupcil of Southeastern Michigan and the Central Metropolitan Detroit Work-Education Council.have been identified to assist the County

prime sponsor in the program.

A Promising But as Yet Untested Confluence of Private Sector Interest in

Employment and Training. All in all, there is a confluence inAhe Detroit

metropolitan area of several separate and distinct initiatives intended to

combine corporate, union, and educational representatives' in cooperative ventures. The spectre, from the standpotnt- of national policymaking, hovers.

overhead of the limited success achieved nationally in the sixties by the

National Alliance of Businessmen's Job Opportunities in the Business Sector

program, but there are some hopeful signs in the new Detrbit attempts. The

public sector--including both manpower and school officials--is integrally

involved here from the beginning, and thus is in -a better positionito bring

"/

A A
J

1

65 , 4

1.- its consider\ le expertise and resources \

into play. The businessmen are also

/ evincing more willingness to accept federal funds which is probably a constructive step, .since such money mey periodically serve as an incentive to revive

flagginfk sentiment. sentiment. '''iirthermore,.the new groups are thinking in terms of

long-term goals and institutional developments rather; than rapid but sometimes

superficial progress. The steps also reflect a mood of Renaissance and hope

that Mayor Coleman Young; Henrys Ford and other community influentials have

devoted considerable energy to bring back to this city so beleaguered just

ten years ago. T e involvement of these major political and economic actors

is pant tularly ignificant, since tying together these several.efforts will

pose a challenge to leadership in the year ahead. Whatever the result, Detroit has Glearly bet more of its manpower chips than most other prime sponsor

jurisdictions on taking this apparent interest expressed by the.private

sector and running with it.

5. Adapting YEDPA to a Centralized Operational System: The Case of

KalamazoolCounty.

The Upjohn Institute for Employment Research Was among the first

manpower agencies in the country to utilize-a centralized delivery system for

both adults and youths. Kalamazoo County has relied on such a system since

the inception of CETA. The system undergoes constant review and modification;

however, the'basic structure has remained unchanged. The rationale for such

a centralized system is to minimize duplication of services, reduce admints-trative cost, provide more comprehensive services and, perhaps most important to

the local program operation, to insure accountability, responsibility and control.

. Ear "Youth Programding,Establishes a Management Pattern. Youth OpRoF7

tunities Unlimited (YOU), a division of the Kalamazoo Valley Intermediate
4

-66-

School District (KVISD), was selected as the prime subcOntractor for providing

service delivery to youths, primarily because of its experience in dealing

with disadvantaged youths and its linkage with all local school districts.

A During the first year of operation, Fiscal Year 1974, both in-school and outof--school components were implemented. Thesd-Component designs were patterned

after the Neighborhood Youth Corks in which YOU had also been involved. Since

the program remained relatively small at that time, it was not until YOU assumed additional responsibility for administration'of the summer program that

the CET4Advisory Council began to pay more atte4tion to youth programs.

S'Ince the summer program was designed primarily for in-school youths and

the overall funding for. youths,constituted only a small portion of the funds

obligated at the local level, theFiscal Year 1976 program eliminated the inschool component from the year-round 0-ogram. This chylge was mainly in

response to limited funding and the philosophy that the CETA emphasis should

be on unemployed rndividuals seeking work and that the funding available would

be more appropriately'utilze if directed towards the out-of - school youths.

The Emergence o YEUPA. In early Fiscal Year 1978, it was clear that a

federal emphasis on youths, accompanied. by more extensive funding, was forth

coming. As in the past, program ltdMinistrators perceived that the existing

system, in'its basic' forM, could be adapted to the necessary changes; and

after years of nurturing and improvement of the present delivery sys,tem proCedures, it was determined that to build an entirely new system would not be in

the best interest,of Kalamazoo County or its clients. Lonsequently, the Prime

Sponsor early in the year began consideration of how the existing system could

be adapted. Recognizing the potential danger in moving too quickly, program

administrators placed primary emphasis on def,ining the process of eligibility

. determination and on the development of a management information system Which
would generate sufficient information to meet federal reporting requirements

as well as additional information that could be used rocally to improve the

program's effectiveness.

Since the out-of-school component-was already in place, and simply underwent expansion through Title III allocations, no serious difficulties were

experienced in this area. The-in-school component had not been operational

for three years, and its termination had left behind some animosity within

local educational agencies: Furthermore, KVISD was in a posit* to influerice,

but not mandate, cooperation of the schools. N6ertheless, through nurturing

and good public relations, a positive relationship with all nine school districts evolved. By September, 1978, the last month of YEDPA's first yea,

four school districts were provid(ng academlc credit to YETR participants

Fine Tuning an Organizational Structure for YEDPA. As it had done\isgs

entering into a primary subcontractVrith Douglass Community Association to

Ey administer certain of its adult manpower programs, so the prime sponsor's

. /'

management agency, the Employment and Management Division of the W.E. Upjohn

.Instute, opted to enter into a single local educational agency agreement

to deal with youth programming. The Institute would be, responsible for plan-

/ ning and operations which would include,establishment of management and fi4cal

information systems, all subcontracting for services, and program monitoring

and evaluation, The Institute then entered int o a primary subcontract with

the KVISD's Youth Opportunities Unlimited to be the primary LEA and primary _ delivery service agent for all winter and summer youth programs within the

jurisdiction,of Kalamazoo County. YOU in turn entered into statements.of s

) S understanding or nonfinancial bgreemenis with governmental units, LEA's,

secondary educational,institutionS, and private non-profit organizations, as

indicated in FigUre 3.

199
Figure :

The Management and Delivery Structure for the

Youth Employment and Demonstration.Projects Act (YEDPA)

'In Kalamazoo County

Financial

Agreements*

Department of Labor

Prime Sponsor'

W.E.IUpjohn Institute

Employment Management-Division

Primary

LEA

Local Educational Agreement

- -In- School

--Out-of-School.

(Financial or Non-financial)

1

Government

Units

Local

Educational

Agencies

Post

Secondary

Education

Private

Non - profit

Organization

Yollth Eployment and Training Program (YETP) 4

1,1 . Youth Coninruity Conservation and Improvement Projects, (YCan')

ti

200

Non - financial

. Worksite

Agreements
-69-

The decision to relylOn a strategy emphasizing a central delivery system

was based on such advantages as the ability to control a single contract more

closely, to ensure more timely and eficient communications, to.monitor work

station agreements as a third party and not as a party to the nonfinancial

agreement, to maintain' a centralized payment system, to minimize duplication

of services, and, perhaps most significantly, to assUrea0Core comprehensive

approach. The essence of control, it was felt, lay with charging one organization with the responsibility forthe entire delivery syitem. Accountability

could not the be di-smiisad.

It is this approach to management, with,its emphasis on inskiring account-

,- ability and responsibility, that is the crux of Kalamazoo County's philosophy.

Inherent in this approach, however, is the need to have participation by deny-

,- ery agenciep of demonstrated effectiveness. Given the existence of a single

deliverer for each component, the system can be seriously compromised if any

agency performs its function poorly. To insure that each Of the components

in the Kalamazoo system is the best in its respective area, ongoing monitoring

and evaluation is considered critical. A network of strong components linked

4 , together and clearly. accountable then becomes the foundation on which all manpower programp in Kalamazoo are built.

. EstablishingLinkages to the System. The system developed the linkages

that were mandated or strongly suggested by YEDPAand others that grew out of

necessity. Nonfinancial agreements with the Michigan Department of Social

1 Services and Michigan Employmedt Security Commission initia ty were pro forma,

but are now prOving to be vald-able supplements to'the local program: The

Michigan Department of-Social Services, for example, verifies public assistance status when reasonable doubt exists, and the Midhigan Employment Security

Commission assists in the job placement effort when participaHts are nearing

oi
-70-

completion. By using a local organizat4ion as the hub of the wheel, Kalamazoo

prime sponsor staffers argue that other local, as well as federal and state,

agencies feel more encouraged to particTpate and provide valuable supplemental?

services. 4

Work stations, in general, are*not difficult to secure'l'n Kalamazoo County

becauSe,of the abundance of nonprofit organizations and cooperative municipal-

,

ities. Linkages developed out of'necessity under YEDPA were, therefore,- with

school districts Oritheir individual schools. While there were a number of

options available in the other youth componer, an in-school program portion

of YEDPA could only be successful if a commitment were made by local educational agencies.

Dealing with school districts is not that dissimilar from dealing with

other bureaucracies. It is important tb hav? the support of the top administrators and respective school boards. Equally important is the support of

..the program staff with whom the clients have daily contact and who are instrumental in carrying out the objectives set forth in the prOgram. Based on

previous experience, it would* be necessary to cultivate such relationships

carefully. CETA, in the opinion cif Kalamazoo staffers, is generally not well'

received by those unfamiliar with its local orientation. In the beginni-h-g,

it would be a sales job, but to last, a product must be developed that would

be to the mutual benefit of all parties.

Work with school personnel began/early in the 078 Fiscal Year. Listening to th eir ideas and suggestions, ,giving consideration to a variety of alternati,yes posed by them, and ensuring that sufficient flexibility existed to

allow for the necessary changing relations between the schools and CETA all

took time. To react too quickly,!the negotiators felt, might have resulted in

5 expedient compromises but would have sacrificed the long-range success of YEDPA.

2021
4

1/4

; Person ApplieS

Intake

S Figure 4 The Service Delivery System for Kalamazoo County's YEDPA and

eligible

N10

lop Term Goals:

Objectives t Needs BackgroundE History

1

Pre- Enrollment

Interview

1. Counseling

2. Referral . 3. Other Support

Services

Objectives

Accomplished

-7- ? NO

Establish

Further Program

Objectives

1. Modify Objectives

2, Probationary Contract

3. Referral 4. Termination

2U .3 .

N

O. ect ves: Needs to be Addressed

Attendance Contwt

Further Info. Needed

Meeting

to Establish

Program

Other Youth Programs

Phase I

1. Counseling

2. Referral

3. Other Support

Services

Phase II Phase III Phase IV

x mum o

2 weeks

0

Youth Ready For

Completion

YES I P se roximatel 4 weeks Return to chool prieirInen

115:1-e-5411-1-1-1."11"

I

Ither Services

I May Work In PAgram

es ng Evaluation urt er

Counsel in oa Clarification

pprox mate y

20 hrs 'er wk.

Maximum of I I Maximum of

8 weeks I 8 weeks

1 Educational I I Wlrk

1 Priority Experience

I iPre- mploy- I 1 Peeparatfon

ment Skills I [for Placement

I

I [ Evaluation.' 1 Evaluation I

1 of Progress I I of Progress I !Approximately( (Approxtmately1

12Shrs.per wk.! L3Ohrs.per wk.f

Progress

Review

Meeting,

I mItar

I

(I Work as Top

Priority

eminatioi

iFinal Placement l Preparation I

I Evaluation

.of Pro

I ress 'Approximately'

13Shrs.per wk.f

\

3O day Person's Main YES Close

Follow-up ) Objective

Established

NO

Cash 4-- e- a s on ac : 1. Counseling

2. Referral 3: Other Support

Ser ices

204
S

- 72 -

The Service Delivery System. The initial'pre-enrollmentteligibility

determination stage is used hot only to screen individuals as to their tech-

, .

,. nical eligibility far a youth a

it h program but also to provide an opportunity in

...-/- a singleopace or the youth tojeceive information about other available

services, too. During the pre-enrollTent interview, discussion/focuses on

. , J

the youth's goals and objectives,. the most appropriate service strudtdFe to

. . - ,r--/- meet mutually established needs, and the structure or program phase in which

the applicant will start. Any combination of

4 may then

e phases indicated in Figure

Phase !jesting no more than two weeks, inNiolves testing, eNu3lion,

and assessment. In addition to achievement and possibly aptitude tests, clients

are also evaluated on their job potential to prepare them for the world of

work. Phase II entails instructional or wo13,k componenvs or both, depending i**; on the client's goals and-objectives. The amount of time spent in each com-

, 4

ponent varies and is a function of client needs. The total time of work and

school together, howevir, does not last more than 20 hours per week for a

peridd of eight weeks. If continuation for the client seems advisable, the

youth may then go into Phase III. This training period differs from P se II

in that the'applicants may now work as long as 30 hours per week. This work

load may be combined with education or other activities if that seems advisable to the evaluation team, but the main purpose of this eight week period is

I\

to increase the number of hours a c

r 'ent works so the.jcIO more-closely simulates the world of work. Those students jmoving inNehase IV average 35 hours

of work'per week, and receive intensive counseling and guidar7 in the area of ' their vocational choice leading to placement.

Youths who by mutual agreement move into Phase V are now working in dangletitive employment or receiving further vocational training in spedialized areas.

4 20 r
-73-

Counselors' from YOU are available, but this training is conducted at other

centers. Follow-up from the prime contractor usually lasts 30 days or, in

the case of on-the-job-training, for the duration, of the contract. Numerous

transitional service's are providjd to the youth at the program's completidn

such as literacy and'bilingual training, job sampling and vocational exploration in the public and private sectors, information on the labor market and

other training opportunities, and job placement assistance.

In' summary, the major premise 'behind Kalamazoo County's youth program

operations is that effective implementationrequires.a centralized delivery

.systernwhichutilizeseminimumwdlerofcomponents'thathwietheability,

accountability and control to make things work. From this premise arises A

network of specialized and established agencies each operating in the compo-

, nent closest to its expertise and held together by a mutual goal.

s

26 Ga

111

F
SOME PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING YEDPA

Definitive conclusions can hardly be reached after a comparative brief

period of operation, but the followih recommendations will hopefully raise

some questions for further consideration.

1. Prime sponsor ttaffers have generally exhibited more interest in

knowledge development than programs operators., Analytical staffs would like

to p.uSh such experimentation further, and it dovetails more neatly with the

. , . prime sponsor's contractual obligations and political need to monitor and

)

.

. evaluate progress than it does with the contractor's more operational orientation.

Prime sponsors, rather than contractors, should, therefore, be

encouraged to assume primary responsibility for knowledge development.,

2, r Three of the five Michigan prime sponsor jurisdictions studied here

. Eto encopntered difficulties with their YCCIP programs when the contractor on whom

they were heavily dependent cancelled its project. Prime sponsors in failing

to diversify the projects removed their flexibility to maneuver when the primary YCCIP contractor-withdrew. In.the event that YCCIP is expanded at-some

future time, and thereby made more financially attractive, itwould then be

wise to mandate greater project diversification.

Wherever possible, a minimum of three YCCIP contractors should then

be required in a prime sponsor's plan.

3. Occupational summaries are most difficult to provide six months before

the jobs are scheduled tit begin. When asked to supply such data in their YEDPA

plans, the prime sponsors are, therefore, generally laying out innocuous and

traditional job descriptions.

To improve job quality, prime sponsors should be required instead

to spell out how they intend to approach job development, and the

plan should then be rated on its methodorogy.

- 74 -

207
r 75 -

4. Further research should be done replicating the study performed by

e Evaluation Unit of the Lansing'Consortium'on the relationship between job

tle and worksite. It must be determined whether at other loOtions and at

her times there is correlation between the-nature of the job identified

id the type of agency. Indeed, for this reason the Lansing evaluators them-

:Ives have remained cautious in the conclusions that they have drawn about the

nplications of their tentative finding even within their owo jurisdiction.

If it is found, however, that CBO's provide a greater variety of

worksite opportunities; then consideration should b given to expanding their job development function in YEDPA.

5. Given the interest in linking the regular and summer youth programs

nd the currently 'limited nature and size of YCCIP, prime sponsors seem justiied in their frequent complaint at having to submit several plans to the

Iepartment of Labor.

-TETP, YCCIP, and SPEDY should be collapsed into .a. single, comprehensive youth plan.

208
Third Interim Report to the Ndtional Council on Employment Policy

on theOplementation'of the Youth Employment and

Demonstration'Projects Act of 1977 (YEDPA)

by Four Georgia Prime Sponsors

by Gretchen E. Maclacblan

with the assistance of: CoatseS' EllisOn

'e November 1978 ) V As the first fiscal year of the YEDPA programs ends, the

four Georgia prime sponsors understudy approach the second

year wiser but still enthusiastic about the-progt;ams. TheAr

trauma of implementation has passed, but the continual frenzy

attendant to operation of a'battery of annually-based programs

goes unabated. Many small lessons have been learned by prime

sponsors and program operators. Often larger issues have been ' put aside as day-to-day Program operations have consumed the

energies ofcall in the CETA system. Policy considerations appear at the margins as standard operating procedures, federal

regulations, and old program habits shape planning and operations.

I. Targeting

Table 1 summarizes''client characteristics of enrollees in

the YETP- and YCCIP programs for FY 1978. Noteworthy are th

relatively high proportions of the economically disadvantaged in

programs in all four areas studied. The most disadvantaged,

those on public assistance, accounted for about one-quarter of

enrollees in'Atlanta and Northeast Georgia. -Those tiro areas have

higher proportions of poor in their.total Topulations'thus should'

be expected ttl show higher proportions. The other.two areas

Nit

209
2 iu

e.

. 'LABLE 1 ." Four Georgia --ime Sponsors, m Cumulative Enrollment In YETP ant.. XCIP throughFY 1978 (Sept. 30, 1978)

,Use enrollment

numbers with

/., distributions

in parentheses

P ime

p nsor

CUM

TOTAL

FY 78

(as of

' a :

0-4 49 g

tx.)

m

wm

oP,w

co

.--1 m4W

0

V) cu .3

0.) 0.4 .c3

01

.1-/

''r4.0

0oz

- c; m

,-I

n-s.

0u

14

m

m a m

ti icjo t' o V CU 0 CO u

", 14 11 A LI cf, . . . CA CA ' VI X X x

.

'Ll, ca, 0 E V

,.-1 w G. 14 1.4 E 0.) o.) 0.) 17 .0 c c w u

CU

-.4 a, ^.... U

(:) Cs. .cc

0

.0M

. m

1.14 u

44 .,I 0 'V

1X CO w x

.

t6i o

00

/4o

Atlanta YCCIP

YETP

.

.

#

%

if%

146

(100)

1277

(100)

99 47

(600 (32)

482' 795

(32) (62)

40 11

(27) (8)

393. 27\

(31) (2,

135

(92)

'.247 (98)

1,04 94 52 0

(71)(64)(36)

1083 312 524 388

(85)(24)(41)(30)

146 0 0

(100)

1277 0

(100):-

0

0

27

(18)

333

(26)

.

5 1

(3) (1)

0 0

n.a.

n. .

Cobb YCCIP

. YETP

. . ,

#

I

°

58

(100)

73

(100)

40 18 26 25

(69)131) (45) (43)

36 37 20 25

(49) (51) (27) (34)

, 33

(57)

48

(66)

48 41 17 0

(88:(71)(29)

64 19 32 21

(87 (26) (44) (29)

47 0 11

(81) (19

. 52, 0 21

(71) (29

0

0

1(7)

4

(.5)

0 0

0 0

n.a. n.a.

, e , DeKalb YCCIP

YETP

r

d

%

4{%

7 (100)

293

(ldb)

7' 0 5 3 (100) 72) (43)

131 162 10 69

(15) (55) (3)(24)

.

4 (57)

223

(76)

. 0' 5 0 2 .(72) (28

197 -26 21 46

(6T (9) (7)(16 )

..

1 *"3 3 (14) (43) (431'

200 10 83

.(68) (3) (29

0

! 0'

'

0

0

0 0

..!

0 18

(6)

n.a. n.a.

NE Ga.-BOS YCCIP

YETP

.,

q%

#

%

40

(100)

.446

11 2'9 20 9

(28) (72) (50; (23)

218 228 321 111

(49) (51) (72)-(25)

4

31

(77)

305

(Y5)

32 23 17

(80) (58)(42)

383 13 14 419

(86) (3) (3) (94)

25 0 15

(63) - (37

19 0 295

(6). (94

0

1 0

11

(28)

56

(13)

0 0

1

..

n.a.

n.a.211
- 3 - enrolled virtually no recipient of public assistance. The

dollar gap between AFDC support-levels and the 85 percent

of the lower living standard in this state is enormous thus

to enroll those less than the 85 percent criteria is not that

difficult.

In YETP, programs females comprised ,over half °fell clients in the four areas. YCCIP projects tend to be constructipn

work and therefore show higher, proportions of Nes, with an

exception. The Uortbeast area program had day care component

as well as carpentry and thus shows a higher percentage of

females (72 percent).

In a region where being black has often been synonymous with

being poor, progrlms need to serve blacks. The Atlanta youth

programs served nearly all blacks with on'y minimal enrollment

of whites. A yearrago the Northeast BOS area planner expressed

concern that CETA programs in his area were tagged as black programs\ and thus were not attracting eligible whites. He felt r

that the youth programs would be able to make an appeal to

economically-disadvantaged whites. They_have to the extent that.

about one-quarter of enrollees are white. Cobb COunty'has the

lowest pgrcentage of blacks of any county in the state. Residentially the blacks are concentrated in the city of MariettA

and it was.in Mariettathat the program operated.. Thus the

r percentage of blacks was quite thigh relative to their population

share.

The YCCIP programs, designed for out-of-school studen

by and large attracted dropouts. The highest proportion of

graduates showed up in the Northeast program; these were feMales

2 1 r)
- 4 - in their #ay care component. Rhere programs were tied to

schools, tne' propoPtion of those under years of age and those

in school, was This was true in the Northeast YETP and

to a lesser extent iri'6obb's YETP. The enrollees in the Northeast YETP,,being in school, show up as "other" in the labor..

force status while unemployed predominate btherwise.

The definition.of the significant segments (Tables 2 .and ST

shows the prime sponsors

"are

to the target eroups which .

1 nationally and regionally are most in need. Thus minorities

are defined in Cobb and Northeast. In Atlanta where most of th,

enrollees in all CETA programs are black this is not listed as a

4 sigrlificant segment. However Atlanta listed Hispanic as a YCCIP

significant segment, after the fact, when'a contract was signed

with the local Latin American Assocaition (LAAr. Approximately

one perdent of Atlanta's population is now Spanish speaking and

the LAA hes been aggressive ih bidding fox CETA contracts with

. 44t several metropolitan-a-rea prime sponsors. '(Their Atlanta YCCIP

contract Was ultimaffiqY withdrawn because of poor performance.)

`DeKalb defined females because one of their YETP projects ?7.4.,

was designed to find qut why.femeni-n their clerical -program'

under Title I had such high non-positive terminationrates: TAy

are aware too that their other programs have not served females

as well as males and this Was a conscious attempt to rectify this,.

Atlanta's YETP ,segments included' the three= educational

1 classifications, specifying levels for each, rather than singling

,out one or two as needing the special consideration in enroll-

. rhent which significant segments usually indicate. Their plan

o.'

2J3
- 5 - table 2

¶Four Georgia Prime Sponsors , -YETP . Planned Versus Actual Enrol lmerit and' Significant Segments

by Quarter., 1978 ti

Atlanta

Inl-School

Title I Rejects

HS Graduates

HS Dropouts

e, Total Enrl 1 m.

Cobb 'County

Eco. Di sadv .

Females

Minority

Total .Enr11m.

NE Ga-BOS

,V,eterans

HS D'ro'pouts

Ecb. Di sadv.

Minority

.Total Enri lm.

Det:a 1 b * Eco. Di sadv .

Females

Dropouts

Ed. Di sadv.

Total ,Enr11m.

'2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter .4th Quarter

Planned Actual % of P P A % P P A % P

240

'160

115

110

'625

alb

18

14

70

0

0

80

100,

120

471

19 119

33 183

45 . 321

0

10

:169 199

133 133

a 172 143

78 33 ?45

2 1 255

185 161 185

79 72 180

16 19

18 34

14 46

53 _ 31 260 172

261

5 393

254

363 58 865 989

69 99 70

3 0

_150 1.2 275 265

340 233

314 350

*Missing ,data not avail able from quarterly reports.

I 21

0

- v ,107 ?,50 343 137

2 350 .` 10 3

212,, 250 524 210

141 250. 312 125

'114, 1100 1277' 116

1,19

Q1,89

`329

2134

47

60 286

37 109

48 102.- 100. 70:: 73

%3 - 8 15 13 87

96 280 383 137

66 260\ 335 - 129

90 365 446 122

66

40

25

35 ° 25

339 293 86
- 6 - , TABLE 3

Four Georgia Prime Sponsors, YCCIPPlanned versus Actual Enrollments and,Significant Segment s' by Quarter, FY :19M

2nd Quarter 3rd Qbarter

Planned Actual

Atl any

Hispanic' 6 4 Eco.Disadv. 87 49

Women 47 31

Offgnders , 22 3

otal Enrllm. 87 91 .' Cobb County

Eco.Disadv. 14 14

Women 3 1 Minority 3,_/ 12

Total Enrllm. 18 17

NE Ga-BOS /

Veterans 1- Q

HS Dropouts 22. _ 12

Eco.Disadv. ,28- -17-

Minority ,-- 21 16

Total En0 /1m. 28 -.21

67 6 4 67 / 6

56 98 80 82 104

66 54 44 81 57

.14 25 5 -20 26

T 4105 9

a 8 122 124 104-

.

100 .18 30 167 36

33 4 14 350 16

400 4 23 575 32

94 23 39 170 5-5

-` 2 b 2 55 ...,- 25 16 6400- 29

6 -----0,--/2tr 21 75 45

7 021- 22 4 Ot 32

-75 X33 27 77 45

t,---

,r

% of P P A % P P"

I

4th Quarter

A % P

4 104

47 8

5 19

146 140

47 131

18 113

32 100

58 106

0 0

13 79' 3Y 69

--.31 97

40 89
- 7 -

made muchof the Title I reject as a primary targetogroup for

youth programs. Atlanta's YETP omitted economically disadvan4

taged as a segment, but it was specified for both programs by

the other three prime sponsor's.

Analysis of the performance in meeting these goals shows,

in retrospect, that "wishful -thinking" influenced the definition

of segments. In Northeast BOS the high level of dropous was

in conflict with a program design Oich placed the prAgram in the

sch5ols) Atlanta's/specification of Title I rejects, when substantial proportionsof its enrollees are youth, was likewise

misguided. The other main discrepancy in planned and actual was

in the,Atlanta rtcip where offenders were specified--though

enrollment of only.26 was planned only 5 were enrolled, and this

in the city whose Youth plan had mad.e the point that nearly 15,000

youth had been arrested in 1976. The consequence of the failur\

to enroll Title I rejects and offenders is that the slack- was

taken up by high school graduates -- over twice as many were enroll-

-. ed as had been planned for.'

Cobb County did soswell in meeting the goals of enrolling

significant segments that it_reased its goals upward for the

fourth quarter and still exceeded the revised. In terms of meet -

ing YETP enrollment goals, they came closest to their planned

performance. The explanation lies in the natdre of-the program--

classroom training which was highly desired._ Dropouts were few,

the enrollment was not staggered but all youth mere put on 'the

= pro§ram It its inception. The Atlanta program started off,sTomar.

partly dile to the intricacies of working out contracts with many

subcontractors, but reached its planned levels by the third guar216

k
0

ter. In the Northeast YETP, the enrollments were better than

N,,......_13. lanned the second quarter, down the next, and then again above Pt

\ by the end of the year as many youth were enrolled for the

summer.

In the first quarter of opeetion YCCIP enrollments were

closed to those planned except in Northeast BOS which remained

under planned enrollments throughout. As time woreon.4 however,

Atlanta and Cqb showed,excess over planned because of high

turnover. Cobb revised their planTled enrollments for this pro-

. gram and ended up shlowing nearly matched planned and actual

enrol ergs for the segments and the total. Atlanta underserved

all but the. economically disadvantaged and overall enrolled

40 percent more youth than planned.

The YCCIP program in DeKalb was ill-placed in the Board

of Education Who did not want-it. All statistics for; this are

cohse uenV,31 meaningless as they pertain to 7 enrollees and expenditdr'es of $4,400.

Programs

Table 4 shows enrollments and expenditures by activity.

As expected YCCIR-programs were exclusively work experience..,,

OP

'YETP activities were concentrated. in career employment experience,

classroom training, and work experience. Atlanta Nad a untqus

category, tpecializedjob development, their innovative programming. Services. were virtually nil with only DeKalb's YETP

shoking any substantial expenses in this realm. OJT was the program activity in which expectations were not met, except in

Atlanta. Prime spojors 'cited difficulties such as youth OJT

21
Use enrollment 4s

and expenditure levels

4th % distributions

in parentheses,

Prime

1,0 Sponsor

TABLE 4

FoUNGeorgia Prime Sponsotb, YETP and YCCIP

Enrollments and Expenditures by Activity through FY 1978 (Sept. 30, 1978)

EnrollMent by Activity

.. , 4r U c

0- 0

"1

,,,., Q 0 4-1 " 0 C

E i ce

,-I il 4 -4 w 0 ..4

' 0 M C, C s-/ E U I c 0 o cl e. o W . u

Wr.1 ...1 ...1 Sr Sr 1,-1

tO VS C 1-1 LS 0 tU 1..1 " O. SI 1/) I tU tU GS 0 GS I" Ft tO 1.0 N

14,,,,,u; om,... wa. x 0 x

0 x, 0 x m x " 0 4.1 0E. 0 p.1 .p.1 0,4 00 0

1

-Total

Em llm

Expenditures by Activity

.-- -

4-I .--. C

B U. u.,

1 0' 0 ur0 , U R1 11, C- . C ' g U C Cs.-' .-. -. a

..4 W 0 W ''.

4.4 ...1 ,.... W

Sr .el $-. . " 0 tU Sr O. 14 1-1 -XS+ 0.(1) Um il, 1.,cu t' z.. e

on o 0 0 X. U 4.1 0 ..... W 0. 43 (..) 14 O 0 0

4 T ot

ExiDnetrs

ATLANTA YCCIP

COBB

vt DCKALB

218

. . YETP

YCCIP#

A YETP It

YCCIP'

YETP Il

YCCIP U YETP Itti

NE GA.-BOS

146

(100);

I . 343 -N3*

(27) (28)

146

(no)

1277

(104)

192.7

(94)

559.0-121.0----- -21577-

(54) (12) (21) .1

12.3

(6)

-130.6*

58

(100):

34 3',- 36

(47) (4) (49)

58.

(100) - -

73

(100),

73.6 4.4

(94) (6)

256.7 2.3

(99) (1)

205.0

(100)

1026.7

(100)

78.0

(100)

259.0

(100)

7 1 (100):

. . _ 24 26 64 13 166

(8) (9) (22) (4) .. (57)

7 (100)

293

(100)

4.4

(100)

46.5 8.-6 70.9 73.7 :

(7) (4) (3]) (1.3) (32)

40

(100).

446

(100)

'40

(100)

446

(100)

*Specialized Job Development

29.9

(100)

358.6

(100)

. . (100)

229.3

(100)

358.6

(100)

'219
- 10 -

Competing,with adult 0J7, worker's compensation, requirements, and

4 time pressures which left too little time before the end of the

project period for an OJT experience.

Expenditures

These Georgia prime sponsors did not come close to expending

all of their funds and, are carrying .over at least 27 percent of

funds. The exceptions are Northeast's YETP which expended 91 percent of its funds and Cobil's YCCIP which expended 79 percent

(Table 5). Te lowest percentages of unexpended funds were for

DeKalb's YETP and YCCIP programs. This prime sponsor had a longer

delay before start-up than the other areas Sue to problems in

getting contracts through the County Commission and Board of

Education. From Table 5, enrollment schedules can be implied--

only Atlanta's two programs and Northeast's YCCIP showed much

activity in the first quarter. Atlanta's administrative and 14-

islative processes are fairly smooth and CETA contracts are

expedited in contrast to DeKalb County. Cobb County's program

started later than others because of their delayed decill'on to

"apply"for youth program funding. Once they'made the decision,

there were no other delays. Their expenditures show, however,

that 40 percent of the obligated funds were expended ih the final

quarter. The two prime sponsors, Atlanta and Northeast BOS,

which were not delayed by contract processing showed a more even,

albeit somewhat erratic, pattern of expenditures over the three

quarters.

220
- 11

lABLE 5

Four Georgia Prime Sponsors,

YCCIP and YETP Expenditures- by Quarters, F1 1978

($ in thousands; % of Total Obligated)

2nd Q. 3rd Q. 4th Q, Unexpended Total Obligated

% $ % $ % $

Atlanta

YCCIP 48.2 14.8 129.5 39.8 205.0 63.0 120.0 36.9 325.0

YETP 209.2 14.5 669.4 46.4 1026.7 71.2 415.2 28.8 1441.9

Cobb

YCCIP 6.1 6.1 37.6 37.8 78.0 78.5 21.4 21.5 99.a

YETP 5.7 1.4 194.7 23.1- 258.9 63.0 151.7 36.9 410.7

DeKalb

YCCIP 0 0 4.4 3.0 123.0 97.0 127.4

YETP 13.1 2.6 15.9 3.2 229.3 146.1 267.7 53.9 497.0

NE Ga -BOS YCCIP 14.2 19.5 29.9 41.0 48.3 '366:2 24.6, 33.8 72.9

YETP 29.4 7.3 152.1 37.5 358.6 '89.9 44.8 11.1

. 10 403.4

221
- '12 - Planning for FY1979

The DeKalb County CETA staff candidly admits that

i'ittle time is spent on devising' strategies for dealing with

the labor market or planning based on elaborate analysis of

local needs. Their immediate concerns are "surviving on a daily basis" and recently this ha's been especially acute with

the uncertainty attenda t on reauthorization of CETA and the budget. Assistant Direc 6r Peter Burke says that in the last few

months he and the Director have spent 50 percent of their time

"working out the intricacies of how to stay afloat" because of

funding uncertainties. He pkought that the change in the

cal year would avoid these uncertainties, but it is as much a

problem this year as any. It is a ".trashy way for Congress to

treat the second most important human service program after welfare."

DeKalb is particularly edgy since they haye heard through

NACo that their funding may be much lower than last year, not

just-slightly reduced. This is of particular concern since their

fiscally Qonservative Board of Commissioners and administrative

departments are slow to review and approve the CETA contracts

which,include contracting fiscal authority to program oerators..

1astear the signing of YETP and YCCIP contracts was delayed

for much longer than in other prime sponsor areas because the

Commission required a different kind of bond of subcontractors

than in the pist. This_addEd time to the approval process.

Currently FY79 contracts for several operators have been drawn
\

I) - 13 - up ,nO are proceeding through the adwinistrative overview process

in the county prior to submission to the Commission's agenda.

It is eared that any, substantial reduction in funding would requir rewriting these contracts, which are creeping through the

r.eview process. Thus the lengthy and slow review and approval

process would of necessity begin anew. This would slow up program operations, which to now have continued but with a wary eye

on the dwindling funds available from FY 78. One program operator is to be changed, YCCIP with be moved from the LEA to the

community action agency. Without a new contract this program

cannot proceed.

The funding uncertainties have ,not had the same effect on

other prime sponsors in the Georgia areas studied. 'In two,

Cobb County and Northeast area of the BOS, fiscal operations are

handled by the State of Georgia which, compared to most program

operators\has no cash flow problem or lack of other reserves; In

Atlanta the YCCIP program is not operating during,the first

, - quarter FY 79. YETP will not begin until January, but some FY 78

contractors have had their contracts extended through the first ' quarter with unused FY 78 funds being expended. Thus operations

4

have continued though at a,reduced rate. Atlanta has needed a

breathing space to work out some of its first year problems. By

delaying the new FY 79 contract's until January these will be

addressed.

The FY 1979 planning for YETP and YCCIP are similar in

some respects to that for 1978, but in other ways differ. The

223
9, - 14 -'

differences are largely as a result of lessons learned in the

fi;st year. The planning process is essentially the same, that used

for other CETA titles by Atlanta--an RFP stage, followed by Youth

Council subcommittee ratings, final approval by the Youth Co.uncil,

ratification by the Emplloymen't and .Training Council, and then"

local legislative and executive approval. The timing of this pro;

cess,-however, has been modified. As the YETP plan candidly states:

Two factors--staff turnover in the City of Atlanta's

Title III CETA Office and limited plan.ning information

and instructions fromDOL--have retarded the FY'79

planning process. As a result, and in an attempt to

avoid problems encountered during FY'78's attempts at

rapid project-selection and implementation, the Atlanta

CETA office will postpone start-up of FY'79 new YETP

contractors until January 1, 1979.

The TitleIII office was established in January 1978 with a

. , skeleton,staff. In following months a new director; chosen from

outside Atlanta manpower circles, and more staff was added. That

,.......... director took an extended leave in mid-summer and was replaced by

the current director, who came out of the local OIC office. Other

staff has been shifted into new responsibilitieswithin the Title

....., III office, others have been relieved of their positions, and still

,others have been given' additional responsibiliti'es beyond the

Title III operation. In nine months the personnel turmoil would

try the bes,t designed and administered program. this situation

during the first year of a new program did not bode well for efficient operations.

A major deficiency in the first year which planning for FY 79

,t is addressing is the intake phase which the Title III office' handles.
I

... - 15 - -> Unlike the first year:it .1'011 'not' take first come, first serve

and out the door to contractors," according to Title Ili, Director

George Henderson. On an unannounced visit to one of the intake

4 ) sessions it was clear that assignments of youth to subcontractors

were on a virtually random basis, with no.constderation of youth

needs compared to the intent of the program component. This has

. . r) been recognizedby the staff as an bbvious'deficiency in their

process. Henderson feels that the high turnover rates underscore.

this need. The redesigned intake will include individualized intake to match youth with the client requirements'ofAifferent

subcontractors Some sort of a 'rating system will be devised which

will consider the youths' attributes compared to those of clients

which the contractors plan to serve. Many youth in the first

, o year had severe educational deficiencies which jeopardized their

program performZe. The intake did not adequately identify their

needs nor make assignments to subcontractors which took account of

the youth's deficiencie..

The foUr program components planned for 1979 are revised

from those in the FY 1978 plan. ,)1s career exploration.'andorlentation phase will follow the intake phase with all youth participating

in contrast to the first year when it'was one of -several parallel

options. The RFP for the career exploration subcontractor took

place before that for the other compunents'since youth will flow..

through it first. A newCBO, which had had a SPEDY contract, won

out over the U,rban League in 'a close contest which was seined only

, after presentations' frOm the two before a subcommittee of thea

ca Youth Council (these two had emerged from a larger group of bidders).

. 1.

. s

a
A D 16 -

1

, After the career exploratian phase youth will be Co nsel - ed by the Title III staff and then referred to another YETP

,component--specialized job development, OJT, remedial education,

or skills training--or to another,,youth program--YCCIP of a

special youth program°(FOCUS, VICI, or Project EXCEL) - -or referr,

red exterloally--Title I, employment,* or other agencies. The

remedial edvation'ah6 the skill training compori-ents are new for

F7 1979. Although about 40 percent of first yearcxlients were

high school gradifates they had such educational deficiencies that

the remedial component was'a&ded tq address them and thus,increase

employability. These two new components substitute for a first

' 0,

year component ca.11e& "innovativeprograms." The innovative pro-

,grams which were subcontracted iii FY 1978 were in one instance to an

an agency whicM serves handicaped,youth through OJT: and the other

to a CBO, Responsibility Langua§,,e System, which through classroom /training provided improve language and communication skills

to youth. In the secondye'arthesei contractors will not be preciuded by the new components definition nit will shift their proposals to other compontnts.

The most sigificant alteration in the Cobb YETP Program is

that the "middle-man," Oak Ridge Associated universities, will be , eliminated. Asmiddle-Man..0ak ridge.establi,shed a local

.. tive agency, ITC, i-n Marietta leasing from Lo,ckheed trainingfacilities, and instructors. ,They successfully contracted with -Cobb Co unty for its YETP program and with several' other

area prime sponsors to operate their STIP- programs. STIP Was their

primary interest, but they were trying fo'r other' contracts includ-'

ing youth programs.

22C

a°
- 17 - /

Chain

0

of com nd prOblems were inherent wirthqhe arrange:0

ment and LOckheed and Cobb County agreed to contract directly the

second year, eliminating the Oak Ridge group. The substantive

nature of the program has not been questioned, only operations.

What Cobb and Lockheed have agreed to do this second year would mot

have occurred without the catalyst of the Oak Ridge group'which-',. , they learned had no monopoly on efficient, smooth program ,operatiqn.

Planning for FY 1979 In the Northeast area of the BOS,is

0 Procedurally the same as for 1978. The planning, however, 'is

addressing some of the deficiencies .of the first year and respond---

ing to estimated lower funding. A major shortcoming of the

program and one which was evident before the program began was

that it was not designed to reach high school dropouts. With the

area's fifteen hig chools as the locus of the phased career.

employment experience, work experience, 41d OJT program .a participant of necessity had to be in school. The'returri of dropouts

to school was anticipated and the plan specified serving 150.

In terms of the USDOL Quarterly Reports these dropouts if theyahad

returned,, would have been counted as in school. Little such movement'occurred. There was no massive, return of dropouts-obscured

in the statistics by being counted as in school. The problem,is

that school is unattractive to many dropouts; some are pushouei,

and unwelcome if-they wanted, to return. In interviews with youth

of this area in the YCCIP program, those who were dropOuts elppressed vehement dislike of school. Some had been out for several years

although only '17 and )8 years old. One youth had been outs, of'

, 4

2'27
18

school since 14 years old (before he reached the legal age of

16 for non attendance). The YETP program does not appeal to these

youth sioce it is school based.

The concern of servicing dropouts has come from the State as

4

well as locally. In instructions to balance-of-state area plan-

. ners tree State of Georgia has phasized serving this significant

segment better than the first yefar.. The program is being reviyed

to account for one major deficiency--the absence of available GED

or ABE programs for the dropout. Recognizing that the dropout will

hesitate to reenter the traditional school, the program coordinator

is working toward creating more opportunities for dropout participants to enroll in these educational programs. In some counties

neither program exists, and it will be necessary to establish one

. or arrange transportation to other counties for participants.

Since the program operator is the Coordinating Education Service

Agency (CESA) this will be a feasible objective since this agency

coordinates educational services -and activities in the fourteen school

systems in the ten-county area.

LEAS

The LEA agreement in DeKalb, a financial agreement with the

4 Board of Education for the operationof a substantial portion of YETP

will continue in FY 1978. Their Director Betty Hull, however, has

had harsh words for the CETA system in term of planning. iuWe were

given conflicting information on how much in funds we can keep

only part or 100 percent. Maybe we'll get the answer by _September 30th

at midni0t.". Of, course, she is only just not getting her ans.c-le.-

v

228
- 19 -

, Up to.now she Lis felt that CETA promotes more fiscal responsibility than he old categorical prograMs:' by allowing carry-overs.

Carry-overs can be purposely generated to protect the programs

.and the clients when Congress is slow to act. She feels that if

the carry-over option is modified that ultimately it is the clients

who will suffer.

The DeKalb LEA will be altered to the extent that the Board

of Education will not operate the YCCIP, which was a failure, but

mill be transferred to the community action agency. That agency

has operated a successful work experience corTnent under Y4-TP and

has bet r success than the schools in reaching dropouts.

In Northeast Georgia the satisfaction among the schdol systems

with CESA's operation of NETP is high. The school principals trust

that agency since it is of their kind and they have had a relation-

. ship otherwise. Since CESA operates all of the YETP, except for

OJT contracts, its role will remain yoltered, although funding will

be reduced (as yet allocations from the State have not been announc:

ed).

The LEA agreementobetween Atlanta GETA and the Atlanta Board

of Education has been extended as have several other YET/P\--eontracts.

A new agreement is being negotiated and should be reached by

January. CETA,staff and Youth Councilembers have expresed concern with this program as being only work experience. 11ore emphasis

on activities concerned with the transition to the world of work

would be preferable according to some staff and Youth Council members. One COuncil member who feels that the Board of Education does

what it wants in terms of programming expressed the despair of

229

9

9
20 -

others: "try and get the schools to take back those coming to

0

CETA who can't read and spend the 22 percent on them." Any significant change in the in-School program is not predicted.

The 1978 LEA agreement in Cobb County included only one of

the two systems in the county (Marietta). While the Cobb County

Board of Education has still not joined, the local technical school

(Marietta-Cobb Are-a Vocational-Technical School) has signed the

agreement. They will serve a referral role. This was essential.

if YETP was ;o have any students during the first two quarters of

the academic year as Marietta High will not release any students

for the program until the last quarte(of their senior. /ear. The

Voc-Tec School will make referrals from among their students and

J

applicants. While their pool is mostly comprised'of high school

graduates, several of their programs do not require graduation thus

they cart refer dropouts as well as graduates to the YETP component:r Another change in the second year is that a formal GED program will

be available to YETP dropouts. Last year this was handled in

formally with the students encouraged to take GED but in fact none

completed it.

Data

?)

Ask a planner for data and you are likely to get anything.

Like knowledge development, it engenders confusion and blanLstares,

nevertheless, like knowledge development it is more understood-than , the terms themselves. Prime, sponsors are sensitive to the data reopired on't.he quarterly reporting forms. But 4compiling statistics

from these forms errors have been found that apparently have

never been detected and called.to the attention of the prime spon230
- 21 - sors by the Regional, Offices One prime sponsor never recorded

significant4segments on the Youth Program Planning Summarysform,

though they were clearly stated in the narrative of the plan,'nor

pn the quarterly Youth Program Status Summaries. When broug.ht itcL

their attention, the response Was that since the program eligibility is the economically disadvantaged it didn't have to be listed

in the significant segments. Obtaining the,quarterly reports fromsome prime sponsors has been difficult. For one prime sponsOr

one office compiled and maintained the Characteristics and Program,

Status forms and another, the Financial Status Report. For-twb

prime sponsors the fourth quarter reports only.became available t'lle

end of the first week in November.

In two prime sponsorships, subcontractors on their own initiative are collecting data about participant performance.' T se two contractors are educational agencies, DeKalb Board of d cation and CESA in Northeast BOA. Another, Atlanta, is using basic

clien data as the data base for a study of impact subcontracted

to a r earch firm. Two sponsors, Cobb and Northeast DOS, use the

services of the Georgia Department of Labor for their basic record

keeping required by USDOL and for their own management.

The Central Recoprds Unit (CRU) of the Georgia Rzpartment of

Labor is the records manager for all balance-of-state areas'(includ-

- ing Northeast). In addition this service is also available to

prime sponsors in the state whi have contracted with them for these

services. Such is the case with Cobb County. Cobb. has a primary

contract with the state for, all functions but planning. GDOL in

turn subcontracts with operators, but the Cobb planning staff conA

2 31
- 22 - stantly,monitors the intelaction between the state and agencies

and the performance of the program contractors.

The CRU compiles and issues Keekly three printouts': the

weekly Wage Detail Payment Summary, Enrollments, and the Wage

Detail fora longer period of time. The prime sponsors can make

some accounting of their funds from these reports, but the CESA

coordinatorin Northeast area feels that they are not timely

enough to accurate gauge the true state of 'the funds. The quarterly reports which the CRU compiles are not furnished to the

P su6contractor routinely but to the area planner. Unless the operator is also compiling the statistics, he will not necessarily

haie as much information about his participants and terminations

as the State and Regional offices. CESA has kept this information for each of the high" schools in which the program operates,

thus'can make decisions per:tai'ning to service, although the

standard reports are not necessarily the basissfor these decisions.

The Cobb planning staff has complained that the quarterly

1 . reports chat CRU of GDOL has compiled'are not accurate, stemming

from their.failure to incorporate all modifications made to the

YETP and YCCIP plans. "We sign them anyway," the planner reports.

'During avisit with the Cobb planners a series of phon'e calls

was witn;ssed in which a discrepancy in placements was discussed

between,I he planning staff and the subcontractors, and then with

the local State ES office with a plea to them to get it "straighL, tened oft."

The complaints about the Central Records Unit is not a one

-way street, however. Earlier in%the YEDPA program cycle the CRU

f

, -232,
- 23 -

r complained that the program operators didn't understand their

reporting requirements. Their CETA Form for Enrollment,,serves

A as both an enrollment and termination form and is subm'itted at

intake and at termination by different=teachers. According

to an employee of the CRU many of them could not fill out the forms

correctly and could hardly be expected to do so since their pro-

' gramsupervisor could not either. Since these teachers were dispersed geographically across ten counties,-corrective action was de-

'layed. The item which was most misunderstood was the economically

disadvantaged criteria. More recently CRU reports that these

problems have been cleared up. As the newness of the program has

worn off and the expertise of the administrators has increased

this sort of problem has been minimized.

The management information system of Atlanta's Title III

Office includes, tracking participants through enrollment and termination data. Financial management is not handled by Title III

but by the central finance office. The Title III Office compiles

several of their own reports weekly by program and contractor

summarizing enrollments, termination by, type, and an analysis of

actual versus planWed performance.

-., -Evaluation

Prime sponsor evaluation activities are primarily confined , to monitoring program performance in terms of enrollment charac-

, teristics, terminations, and expenditures. The purpose of the

reports is to assess whether contractors are meeting their goals

, If not, CETA can recommend corrective action. These reports are

required by Atlanta CETA of each of its programs and are present- ,

233
- *24 -

ed at the regular Monday morning meetings of all CETA-staff

Nministrators. Some internal competition among the various

-Ti3le's administrators is inevitable as their programs are

brought to the numbers test. The federal forms for reporting

of Characteristics and the Program Status Summary are compiled

monthly for Atlanta's Title III programs to assess impact on

client groups. Recommendations are made to the Whole unit if

deficiencies in service are revealed through this analysis.

Beyond the considerations of keeping up with schedules

and plans, the Title III staff has recognized the necessity for

more probing into questions of impact. A more sophisticated research

study has been commissioned to the Institute of the Black World,

a locAl consortium ofblack intellectuals, to provide a profile

and analysis of the target population. They will sample program

participants and non-participants and compare demographic characteristics, attitudes toward work and authoi-ity, self-concept,

values and future orientation. The study will also utilize

client data records as well as interviews with counselors and

trainers to address the questions of impact. Th'e staff and council are depending on this study as their YEDPA knowledge development.

A different kind of impact question concerns the BOS. They

require that their.own program benefits be equitably distributed

within the state--not only among the 16 different areas of the

BOS but also among the counties in each area. In order to monitor and evaluate thb fair.-share distribution of program enrollments and expenditures, the reports to each BOS area break out

234
- 25 -

enrollments, terminations, and expenditures.by county. Having

numerous counties, many of which are relatively unpopulated and

rural, a few CETA da4lars make a substantial impact locally.

Since progr m operation favors larger population centers; this

county-based monitoring and evaluation keeps a share of the benefits for small rural counties. The CEtA coordinator has calculated,

co.rding to the allocation formula;, the number of hours of work

each high school can authorize for YETP prticipants. The pro-

, gram teachers then are responsible for making the_decisions as to

who works how much yet keeping totals within their maximum

allotted hours anr-thus assuring the equitable distribution of.

funds among counties.

For their experimsptal, YETP cTerital training program the

DeKalb Board of EducatiOn has amassed a data see on its clients.

These items include the results of ability and physical testing,

program attendance and absenteeism, demographic data, work and

education histories, and program performance. Due to the research

experimental character of the program and the methodological

sophistication of the coordinator, questions of the program's

impact are uppermost in t'he project Ms., Hull has been and is

continuing to test out hypotheses related to'clients' labor market

successes. However, this is a,un4que situation and does not.eharacterize the otherYEDPA prajgcts studied. Others ,are concerned

about impact on youth but as described this is very much subsidiary to the collection of data and its evaluatioil to "satisfy

the feds" ormonitor the performance of subcontractors regarding

enrollments and expenditures.

.235'
- 26 -

SPEDY

The YEDP1 programs have significantly altered the delivery of the SPEDY" program in the City of Atlanta. With the

establishment of the Title III Office, a shift in program respon-

. sibility was made within' the City's goveittament. Prior to CETA

the local community action agency (EOA) had operated the summer

youth programs, but once CETA was enacted that responsibility

was placed within City government. _ This was not, however, initially with the CETA Office but with the yoythlDevelopment

Division (YDD), an office devoted to youth advocacy, resource'

development, planning and evaluation. Both the YDD and the CETA

Office are part 6f the City's Department of Community and Human

Development but in terms.of human services delivery, CETA programs

comprise the lion's share. SPEDY was the lone CETA program not

principally administered by the CETA Office. lqDPA was the impetus

for establishing a separate Title III Office to 'administer YETP

andYCCIP. The 'special youth program grants which Atlanta has

received also are administered through this office. The'lfull

shift of the administration of SPEDY completed the centralization

of youth employment programming in the CETA Title 11,1 Office tthe

exception is the Title I in-school program). The YoutW Council

superceded the SPEDY council. 14he,Director of the 'YDD, Terry.

Allen, feels this is to the detriment of, the pr6gram because the

SPEDY council had substantially more community*memb'ers who were

responsive to community needs. Thus, he says-,the%

,(1.9me of the gdme is b-ecomTng..."turf protecting" with agenci2s and

City departments intent On getting their slots. Allen fears that

a 2lJ
- 27 -

the comprehensive design is being supplanted by a series of

a separate, unrelated summer subcontracts, many of which'are innovative projects which more appropriately should be offered yearround.

This summer's SPEDY' program did mark a departure in this.

respect. Inn vative career exploration projects, several of which

were initiated under 'YETP, were funded through SPEDY as their YETP

cycles had exp red. Rather than "one-shot" summer pilot programs

several of the innovations are permanent additions to the yearround youth programs. The diversification of SPEDY'and YETP by

Atlanta represents a policy decision to move away from work

experience as the only program option for youth.

ir

A similar dissatisfaction with work experience and the at-

. traction of more innovative programming` such as taking place through ,

YETP led to a changed SPEDY program in Cobb County. Until 1978

the summer.program-was exclusively work experience. In the plan-

. ning phase Mrs., Lee, the principal of Marietta Agh,School" (the LEA

and referral agency for in-school youth to the YET? program) designed a

, v summer remedial reading program. When teachers at the local middle

. % school heard of the proposed program, which ould teach reading and

- pay youth.to attend classei, they were out aged. Unfavorable

publicity sUrounding 'this incident resulted in the LEA revising

,

. . %. : - , the-program to eliminate the paiment of allow.ances for the hours

1r

) that ,the students were studying,reading. Since the program also

included Career Exploration the students were.paid allowances for

the balance of their time.

237

ti
._j

28 -

In addition to the Career-Exploration Reading program,

the SPEDY prograM included a small vocational exploration component (for 40 youth) modeled on the YETP omponent by that

^contractor. The summer component consisted classroom training

in electrical or sheet metal skills. It was targeted for out-ofschool youth, but did not attract sufficient numbers and thus

,ended up as serving primarily in-school youth. The planners'

feel this was the major shortfall in expectations.

Tkd balince-of Cobb's SPEDY, and the largest part, was

. work experience. The wages paid under it were $2.65 per hour, the

sa e ETP, but compared to $3.00 for YC'CIP. YETP par icipants

were not allowed to transfer to SPEDY work experience alth ugh

a few applied? Their motivation was to avoid the academic. portion

of YETP which was required in conjunction with their YETP classroom training. Since the YETP youth, mostly in-school seniors,

had signed agreements with their principal and their parents in

order to enter YUP they were prohibited from making the transfer.

Some former YCCIP participants who hid dropped .out before the

summer enro-iled in SPEDY althOugh the wage was less. The work in

YCCIP is primarily carpentry. The difference in type of work between summer work experience and YCCIP is in the variety of

placements in the summer program,. The YCCIP project, contracted

to the YMCA and YWCA, includes carpentry repair and alteration

activities, painting, and some landscaping in various sites

'around the city. The work is physically demanding and often includes maintenance and cleaning. Summer work experience jobs

included a greater variety of assignments--clerical, recreational,

238
0

29,-

and food service as well as laboring and sites--the usual public agencies, schools, park(, and non-profitagencies. The_" ser-

, vices in neither program are at issue as they are minimal.

In Northeast Georgia SPEDY was operated much, as 441 the

past through the community, action agency, ACTION, which also

operates the YCCIP program, the Title I in- school program which

is still referred to as NYC.. The agency is the only community -

based organization with a-network throughout the en-county area.

Many of these counties are quite rural with access to employment

especially acute. The agency provided counseling to participants

for a week prior to their being interviewed by client organizations and placed in work experience. They placed 1048 SPEDY and

258 Title I youth ig agencies throughout the,ten counties. ACTION's

records of these placements indicate that SPEDY and Title I participants wee frequently placed in the same ag-Olcy thus blurring

the distinction between t=ide two programs.

The YETP youth, participating in CEE with a'work assignment

in their high scbool or a local agency, ,sually remained in their

positions but with their hours increased. Some youth transferred

to SPEDY, although there was no inherent wage or service advantage

in doing this. In fact, the advantage was with /ETP because of

the services provided by. the teacher-counselor. Some 120 new youth

were enrolled in YETP in the faurth.(s immer) quarter. A conse-.

quence of the,heavy enrollments in the final quter.and,the increased work hours of those already enroPed isthat 90 percent Of

funds were expended. - - This was considerably atove that` originally

planned. The area planner indicated that control slipped away.from >

23a

Os
.

L

- 30,-

the program coordinator.

A

An exceptional,'YETP placement opportunity was. arranged

through ACTION during the summer by considering it as a work

site. Thirteen youth were enrolled,in ACTION's Title VI

carpentry program. They renovated the ex-school which became

eESA's headquarters., Some-of these youth 'participants are now . 6

being, considered as supervisors for the Title VI-program

-since they became highly proficient workers, and demonstrated

supervisory capacity through informal work relationships.

A distinction between YETP and NYC (Title I) which CESA,

the YETP program operator, has been stressing throughout the

program was, the superiority of the work experience and particul-

.

1

arly the supervision. At a high school visited earlier this was

apparent but a more recent visit to another high school somewhat contradicted the earlier observation. The school principal

# /

, was aware. that YETP band Title I students were on work assignments

within the school but could make no qualitative distinctio n between their assigried jobs. In recounting the summer activities

a of, YETP youth at his school he complained that ! "it took six youth,

three weeks to paint a dressing room; they goofed off, played

basketball and went-to.twon." Asked about the future, the prin4

cipal rellted: "I want to have ten next summer to sling weeds,

paint, s.crub\ floors, play basketball, and go to town.',', The diflo ference is that he will be the boss. 1 The SPEDY program in DeKalb County is more seasoned than in

other prime sponsors which recently have begun the kind of program

experimentation which DeKalb has had for years. DeKalb's SPEDY

administrator, their Board of Education, has operated yOuth pro-

( , 240

I
( 3 A:4

1 grams in the summer and year round since the "categori6a1

They are proud that they are unlike many prime sponsch-)06ho under

`CEJA abandoned youth programming except in the summer. Rather

than.YETP influencing SPEDY design the reverse is true: Their

YETP program is. similar to their SPEDY in tdrms of the components.

Through SPEDY they have been awarding academic creditTto youth in

career exploration for the past four summers. About 130 yOuth

from Tittle I transferred to SPEDY; 180 SPEDY youth went into

Title I after thi summer and a few into YCCIP,Gene'rally in this

and other prime sponsors, there was little transferring from YETP

and YCCIP to SPEDY or back. 4

-r

r

0

24(1

-
- 32 -

Issues Postscript

The assumption that programs, and these in particular,

are wanted by local governments has been raised by two prime

0

sponsors. It has been obseryed that this predicates action in

Washington and by Congress especially, but also the USDOL. One

of the Georgia prime sponsors, Cobb County, decided not to par-

. ticipate in YEDPA410rogram's last fall. A torrent of pressure

was applied froth the highest levels of federal government as well

as the state to reverse that decision. In this particular

case the County Administration had not wanted to take on another

program bectuse of some dissatisfaction with other CETA-program

administration locally. However, this county -is extremely

politically conservative, very suspicious of federal programs,

and nervous about integration issues. Thus the County administration, the plan.ners, and others delivering services have to proceed

with some caution. For instance, several of the Atlanta CBOs have

never succeeded in obtaining a contract in Cobb although the geographical distance is negligible. . A related issue is that the "fedSY and Congress have no a0-

-predation for local government process. In terms of initial implementation this has been thoroughly discussed in these case

studies but, it is a factor throughout,.but especially in planning

and contracting phases. The fact that, regulations are made final

toward the end of the program year is source of great irritation.

The CETA system is affected with a high rate of job dissatisfaction. Employees inevery prime sponsor, except ane, were
t

4

- 33 -

actively looking for jobs elsewhere and others were showing

such signs of strain d dislike for their assignments that

they would jump if a job were offered. This was not only among

lower level occupations but at all but the top administrative

level. Can an employment an training program be planned and

operated by employees who themselves are caught between the insane demands of their system?

IN.

4

,,

/

243

-

c

-f

,

w,

.I.

,A0

a r

.

. Introdction

fitis.is the third interim ye p° on LEi Peale ICCIP youth programs

in three Prime Sponsors: Boston, EastP-sc/ Middlesex, and Worcr-ster. In

each Of these Primes we identified. several 4p-tog-rams- and tracked them very . c3.osey over the past year. The programs we eioardsled wexe:

t(1) On in-school (Boston

(2) World of Work (Boston YESPI

..., 01 Iona Park (Boston ICCV)

(4) 'Youth In Service to the Elderly (Boston Yom'?

(5) CElaC tiedia Project. and o3T avil:Z-168e YET?)

.-- (6) 3u,st-h-Start (all-bridge ICC12)

(1) Project. Transitfict.t (Worcester YES?)

m'(8) 10131 Inc. (No* rcestp...r ISTP)

(9) Parks Program (Worcester ICC32)

In eacriof these prcgrams we interviewed youth. 'For the' smaller

tzcgrars. we interview ea all of the youth, in the ]der n-schcc/laic.

experience plcgrams No interviewed a sertPle Ixi Trost instances wa illtervie/ma the Truth more than once in the ccorse of the. program. Nearly

i..io youth were

interviewed.

In addiion, we atter/lea:int-6o interviews lsst winter and then

followed the ytri:01 through the prograprts. We atterded clailses with the

Y sPent tire with them on job sites, intervieved site st*erviscrs, and kept Vrack. of the youth after they left the Prograz. We

also extensively ihter:rlewed the staff (at all levei.. ineach 'pia.

We thus rot only learned much amt the yctith- axe what hat:spelled to them.

Vat tor Trost programs

we obse,rvtd, the evolution of the program itself

. 245

J

.

+
0

-2-

in terms of content, staff, organization, and so forth. In adaition,

w)1.9.L.w_held numerous interviews with Prime Sponsor staff.

This report represents only a fraction of the information gathered

as a result of these extensive interviews. The process is =timing

and the final report will contain greater detail. Furthermore, the

opinions contained in this report are tentative and subject to change.

Unlike the previous interim reports, this interim report will

focus on the programs themselves descibing their goals, content, and

outcome. Again, the tentative nature of these judgements should be

Emphasized.

MC Programs

CEOC was responsible for Cambridge's YEtP.programs. We monitored

two of CEOC's efforts: (a) an OJT program and (b) a media project.

The OJT program was intended to enroll 45 youth for "Job Shop"

training, send, 3 youth to each-employer who would select one,, and place

the remaining youth elsewhere in the System.

The program only succeeded in enrolling roughly tO6nty youth. Of

these only five were placed in OJT slots,.all involving menial work.

The remainder were simply sent to await SPEDY summer jobs.

0 We obsarvesEmeral of the job-Shop sessions which were intendadto

prepare the youth for their OJT interviews. These sessions were.competently run by the staff but lacked spark and a sense of involvement

on the part of the youth. This, of course, became less than relevant

given the failure of the program to produce OJT slots.

The Media Project.experienced even more serious problems than the

OJT program. The media project initial 1,y was designed for thirty

. youth, twenty drop-outs andten in- school youth. The,cut-of-school
-3-

A youth were intended to attend GED classes in the morningS and.engage in

media instruction and projects in the afteLnoon. The in-school youthk

joined the'media activities after schoo

The Media instruction was organized and run by a private corporation

which does media programs for local schools.

The media project was in difficulty f.1.&I the start. In the several

sessions which we observed, the youth generally paid little attention,

displayed little interest, and were not involved. Over time this.

worsened with hostility, occassionally racial, emerging in the group.

CEOC was unable to intervene successfully to improve the program. This

situation was exacerbated when the CEOC staff person responsible for the

program resigned.

By June the chaos had gotten out of hand with fights developing

among the youth. The two media instructors were fired, the program was

suspended, briefly resumed, but was suspended again. The youth were sent

to job sites, with the GED continuing. Meanwhile, the CEOC youth director resigned (it is interesting to note that in the midst of the program's collapse it was ted at a Regional Labor t conference

as a model program).

As of the end of Septgnber, only seven of the original twenty outof-school youth were attending GED (lasses, and none of them had taken

any of. the exams. Ten of the twenty out-of-school youth either were

regularly attending the afternoon program or back in school. Eight of . the remaining ten are essentially unaccounted for and two are said to be

working.

Just -A -Start

just-A-Start is the Cambridge YCCIP program. It contained eight-

/

2 4 fr.,
-4-

teen slots1 The youth were divided intccwork crews and engaged in

housing rehab work under the supervisor of skilled adults (who were CETA

Title VI workers). In the evenings the youth participated in GED classes.

We interviewed all of the youth in the program, observed the crews

at work, -and observed same of the GED classes. We also observed the

intake procedure at the start of the program.

The program is not a supported work project, but is organized

informally along these lines. They are strict about attendence and

punctuality. In addition, within the guidelines and budget the program

rewards youth through pay increases. Thereyas considerable dissatisfaction

among the youth about pay levels'and next year's program will offer

1. higher wages:

It should also be noted that the just.-A-Start Corporation donated

equipment and transportation to the program and this year will, not charge

any overhead or administrative costs. The entire budget will go to wages

for the youth.

We observed several crews at work and were impressed with the quality of the Work and the camaraderie among the youth.

The'program enrolled a total of twenty-four youth over the-course

of the year. Of these two were terminated, three withdrew to enter

other youth programs, and eight withdrew formismffaneceis reasons. This

is a fairly high turnover rate. However, it should be noted that at

least six of those who withdrew or terminated were in the program for

one month or less. Thus, if a person lasted a month the odds were good

41 of thenimaking it.

Of the eleven youth who completed the program three were placed in

OJT slots, three found private sector jobs, one enrolled in college, and

2q8
four are continuing in the program.

With respect to the GED, one youth completed it, five have passed two

or more exams and are continuing, four

but participated in practice sessions,

local high schools.

It i8 still too' early to make

we won't know for same

to take the exam

two took night courses in

is about the program because

of the youth in the OJT slots,

the yoUth who found jobs, and the youth who continue in the program.

Etwever, given the resources available to programs it is not clear what

our expectations should be. On the basis of what we know now aregard this

as a successful, well run program, probably the soundest YCCIP program

we have observed. o The reasons for the program's success seem to be:

(1) The work was meaningful to the youth. This does not mean

that the youth became skilled craftsmen or even learned

enough to compete successfully in the job market. It does

mean that the youth felt they were learning 9:nettling and,

more importantly, that the work was useful.

'(2) The agency is oriented toward housing rehabilitation work and

treated the program as a neans toward accaiplishing this work.

lArcthermore,the agency seems less involved than others in

local politics and lacks the internal struggles which characterize some agencies. P1.12 of this lends a more professional

air to the program and the youth sense this.

World of Work

World of Work, a Boston YETP program, prepares in-school youth for

private sector jobs. WOW provides no stipends, rather it puts the youth

O 249
d through a three week workshop and then uses contacts in the business

oannanity to arrange interviews for the youth.

We observed a group in March. We followed the group (of twelve

youth) flail recruitmnt, through the workshops, and to placement. As

noted in earlier interim reports,.this grouprAy not be representative

because the start-up of the entitlement program caused same disruptions in

the % programs. We are nor following another group through the cycle.

During the workshaps thryondrame given interest tests, coached

in hoar to fill out applications, how to behave in interviews and so

Barth. We were impressed with the relaxed but serious atmosphere of

the workshops.

The cycle for these youth ended in April. The youth were then

supposed to be sent to job interviews for non-stipended private sector

employment. As of mid- July, texp of the twelve youth were on jobs. As

of this fail, the following was the situation of the twelve youth:

(1) No job

(21 No jcb

(3) No job

(4) No job

(5) Hospyal dietary assistant

(6) Department store warehouse

(7) Department store warehouse

(8) Hospital orderly

I

(9) Hospital orderly

((0) NO job

(11) Job thrqU'gh ABC)

(12) Job thrOugh ABCD

o
-7-

As is app agnt, five of the youth wereWithdut-jobs, two of the

hytuth had jobs (presumably stipended) through ABCD, and the jobs held by

three of the youth were in the public or non-profit sector.

Project Transition

Project Transition, is the largest Wbrcester YETP effort. It is

essentially an in-school work experience program organized along standard lines. It does, however, provide considerably,mor counseling

than most such programs. The CAP agency nxns thepirogranr\hired

several counselors as did the Whorcester schools under the LEA agreement.

The program was slow getting started due to a variety of problems

discussed in our earlier reports. As of August, the program had 159

youth enxolled!out of a projected 200.

We drew a random sample of twenty -three youth and interviewed th'em

between May and August. We also-intervieweatheir job site supervisms

and the Project Ttansitioh (not school) counselors assigned to than.

A list of their sites and tasks are.endlosed in'Table II.

Our iMpressions are:

(1) The quality of the work sites are very impressive. There is

good variety and a low ratio of clerical to other tasks. Same

of the activities of the youth are quite remarkable.

(2) There existed very good interactions between the Project

Transition counselors and.the youth. The counselors obviously

knew the youth well, understood how they were doing'on thework sites, and saw the youth at regular intervals, Further-

. more,. the counselors generally had made special effdtts to

place youth in settings consistent:with their interests and on

several occasions found new sites for youth who requested a
-8-

change.

...(3) The youth Caere generally quite pleased with the program, as

were the job site supervisors.

MOD In-School Pogram

This program is the largest component of Boston's YELP activities,

enrolling roughly 200 youth during the school year. par the most part,

,the program is organized in adWaentralized manner with neighborhood

based ABCD Councils (APAC's) responsible for the operation of their own

programs., In addition, the central,fficEf ABC D organizes specialized

programs (to be described below) .

We drew a random sample of yoUth from three of the largest APAC's,

visited their sites and interviewed the youth and supervisors. We did

the same for all pf the youth 'in a smaller APAC. In ISTAon, we have

exhausftively intervialedAECD administrative staff and counselors involved with these youth.

Table I below lists the,pdacements and the tasks of the youth in

pur sample. Cur impressions' of the pdacements and supportive services

are:

(1) We are ixupressed with the quality of the agencies in which

paacements are made. The agencies.are diversified and generally, by virtue of their function, likely to be concerned

with the youth Whom they take on.

(2) This implication is born out by interviews with supervisors.-

Theyalmost always knew the youth well, were genuinely concerned with their welfare and had gone out of their way to

help them.

(3) The dominance of clerical occupations is disturbing.

252
1114BLE I

ABM Placarents

41a,

agency

Catuunity Medical Center

Day Care Center

City Hospital

Housing Authority

Social Service Agency

Mental Health Center

Recreation Center

State arrironnEntal Agency

ABCD . Child Development

youth Agency

Medical Center

ABCD

State Agency

Creative Arts School

Day Care Center

Day Care Center

Day Care Center

Day M!;e Center

City Hispital

Neighborhood Center

Neighborhood Center

ABCD

Recreation

City Agency

ABCD

Neighborhood Center

Federal Agency

Housing Project

Legal Services 'Clerical

Child Care Agency Day Care

ABC) Clerical

Health Qenter Clerical

Task

Clerical.

Teacher's Assistant

Clerical

Clerical

Youth Work

Clerical

Labor

Clerical

Clerical,

Child Care

, Day Care

Clerical

Clerical

Clerical

Clerical and Youth Worker

Day Care

-Day Care

Clerical

Labor

Clerical

Clerical, Child Care

Clerical

Clerical

Guard, Instructor

Clerical

Clerical

Day Care

Clerical

Labor

253
tek Agency

Social Service Agency

Hicfil School

SOCi al Service Agency,

Social Service Agency

4-H Club

Social Serice Agency

College

Hospital

Hospital

Day Camp/

School

CoMuirmity Agency

CommunitY Agency

State Agency

Vairinary School

Day Care

Public Intexest-GrouP

Community Center

Medical Organization

Veterinary School

Parks Department.

Library

lebsetan

TABI II

Task

Clerical

Tutor

Clerical

Clerical

Youth Work

Clerical

labor

Lab Assistant

Janitorial.

Counselor

Clerical

Curriculum

resigns Mtilti-Media Shaves

Clerical

Clerical/Work .with Animals

Child Work

Clerical

COnnunity Cutreach

4 Clerical

ASsistant*Vet

Youth Work

7

f5

Clerical

Labor

/
-9-

(4). In general the youth did not receive very much in the way

of supportive services from ABCD, such as counseling or

workshops. This varied with the APAC's, but the average was

not good. The counselors are part time workers without special training and who have other jobs or are in school. Hence

the ma> benefits to the youth are the jobs themselves and

any support they receive frin the supervisors.

(5) The youth in general peered happy with their jobs, liked their

supervisors, and had only minor (=plaints about the proyram.

, -ABCD'sventradiffiqas tried to improve upon thenomal operation

of the in- school program by establishing several special Sub-programs.

The outstanding example iv the'H .-4-1 th Careers program which involves :, placement in health related'sites and in which the youth actually receivectt supportive services. This program was developed under the auspices of

the in- school program, but this year was successful in securing outside

funding. ABCD is in the process of establishing an environmental careers

program with a similar philosophy.

The selectihn of Youth into the in-school program is giperally not

on the baiis'Of need {other than as defined in 1:qt:regulations). That

is to say, no special effort is made to identify potential drop -outs

or youth who otherwise are_in need of intervention:* In fact, at least

one APAC selects the youth who have performed best in summer programs.

This obviously raises the issue of program goals other Thami income

maintenance. Itmeve, thls'is not a probleM unique to ABCD, the same

issue can'be raised for other equivalent in-school programs. Given the

limited resources and extent oounseling and other services, it

may notbe'viable to theastrategy.

*Although local soc service agencies do refer youth to the central

ABC) office and special efforts are made to place these youth in programs.

255.
I

-10-

YOU Inc.

This component of the Worcester YETP programs differs qualitatively

from all of the other Yell, programs we have examined. The youth in

this program are in very serious difficulty: they are offenders, and

nenyof.them are seriously disturbed. Many of than came from broken

homes ans).1 live in various agency settings.

The program staff is of the manpower tradition, rather they

are social and other mental health Professionals. This led to

various initial difficulties in becoming accustomed to the mysteries of

CEMA regulations and procedures. In addition, the program was very care- -. ful in the initial selection of youth beause, in effect, the program is

a therapeutic setting. For these, enders - e-10, reasons, the program

was very slow in getting started and in meeting their quotas.

The youth, who are enrolled in Worcester's alternative schools,

placed in regular job placements, which are identical in type and

to those,of Project Transition. The supervisors are,not informed of

the background of the youth but do have instructions to get in touch with

YOU Inc. staff immediately in the event of any difficulty. We interviewed ten youth and supervisors and our impressions are good. Because of

the sensitivity of the situation we 10/.3.1 not now identify or describe

these placements.

The program provides considerable counseling..and support services

to the youth.

Lena Park

The Lena Park YCCIP program is a landscaping program for seventeen

out-of-school youth. The program is run under the auspices of the Lena

Park Community Center.

Iba
4

The program experienced some initial/start up difficulties (difficialty in recruiting youth, difficulty in arranging for classroom instruction in landscaping) and began in earnest on March 1st. The first month

4

consisted of classrOom instruction conducted by a local landscaping firm,

and our observation of the classes as well as conversation with the youth'

and staff indicated that they were well run and successful.

The youth began work in their initial site a local park -- in

April and the program seemed to be ing quite well. :The youth took

their work seriously,.as evidenced by the obvious care which went into

site drawings which they prepared. In addition, the program seemed to

be successful in developing auxiliary services. For example, the youth

were invited to make a presentation 'to a public forumorganized by the

Boston Architectural Center, scholarships were available by the Center to

several youth for a fiVe week landscaping program, various arrangements

were made with respect to health care.

However, by mid-Jure the-program had begun to fall apart. Throughout the summer on numerous visits we observed very poor attendance,

andcopversaticas with they6uth indicated increasing bitterness and

disillusionment with the program. Among the contributing factors were

(1) Enormobs staff turnover. In May, one of the original supervisors resigned, and the remaining supervisor became responsible

fioii the entire program on a day-to-day basis. In June this

supervisor resigned and interim -- completely untrained -- supervisors were pit in charge. In July the program director resigned

and a new director and new supervisors were-hired.

(2) Inadequate Equipment. The program contirually suffered frOm

a shortage of tools And from the law quality of the tools which
6

-12-

were available. In addition, the program had no transport

available to take the youth to sites or to remove debris from

those

(3) Inappropriate work 9ktes.' The youth felt, and told us, that

because of the problems with tools and training, they were

, doing little other than clean-up work. At the same time, the

sites they worked on seemed poorly chosen. ,The most serious

example is that on-several occasions the youth were used-to

help clean up the starlium of the local professional football

team. Evidently, the team had made a side arrangement with

Lena Park for these services. In addition, the youth were

used to clean up housing owned by Lena Park and which Lena

Park intended to sell, and the youth were, used to work on the

baseball diamond owned by Lena Park.

It:should be noted that despite these difficulties several of the

(

staff -- both original and new -- worked hard to maintain contact with

the youth and to counsel with them on an informal basis. These efforts

seem to have met with some success, in early Septemberrop(of the youth

indicated an intention to return to school.

Youth In Service to the E7d4ly

This YIP program is a supported work project for thirteen youth

which sends than into the homes of elderly people for clean up and painting.

Transition EMployment Enterprises, which runs the program, is also inavolvedwith a HUDYCCIP program and both programs are operating through

a local CDC. It has proven difficult for us and for the Boston Prime

* Sponsor to clearly separate the various components, but while this is

annoying from a bureaucratic viewpoint, it does-not seem to have any
-13-

prcgramatic implications, with one exception noted below.

The program Can be interpretated as having three oomponentb. These

are:

(a) The clean up work

(b) The educational component

(c) Behavioral modification via the supported work concept..

We have observed the youth at work on several occasions and our

impressions are positive. The youth work -well and take their tasks

seriously. They seem well received by the community, have had many

referenOes, and.receive very good on the job supervision. They are

clearly performing useful services and doing it well.

It has to be kept in mind, however, that the skills involved are

minimal and are unlikely to of themselves lead the youth anyWhere.. The

question, then; is the impact of the program on the youth's behavior on

educational skills.

The youth themselves have noted on several occasions to us that

while they feel they are not picking up skills, they have matured as a

result Of the program: They felt:good about the combination of negotiation and structure:which was initiated in the orientation sessions and

have continued. We are currently intensively interviewing the youth

in order to better dodument this maturatidn. An important caveat,

however, is.the program's termination rate. Terminations, andthe

threat of terminatilons, are intridsic to the idea of supported work.

However, this obviously raises the issue of Creaming. For example, '-,

to

of the eleven youth who entered the program in March or April, seven

were no longer there at the end of August (although two of the seven

were reported on other jobs).

2 5
The other issue concerning the program is the. educational 'component.

This was not put into place until the end of August. Currently the

youth work three and a half dayS a week, spend one morning in classes,

an afternoon on educational projects of various types, and an afternoon

attending lectures by various outside people of interest: This educational contmnent is only intended to last two and a half months.

Although the explanation for the slaw s is not entirely clear, one

factor seems to have been difficulty with the HUD component which in

turn slowed up the DOL.program.

We have attended several classes (which are remedial, the youth's

average reading score is fifth grade) and'found than well run. However,

obviously not very much can be expected from such a short and non-

, intensive program.

The program has been continued on lag monies through the fall,

althbu4h it i9, not being refunded from FY79 monies. Until we have a

I better see of the personal development of the youdl, it seems best to

withholddudgment.

ORAL ISSUES

The follawing are some issues which seen to be important.

(1) Many of the programs have continued to experience difficultyin"recruiting youth. Last year this could be reasonably

attribUted to start up problems, but that is not the case this

year. Program operators offer a variety of explanations of

this difficulty. Cme possibility is that the universe of

needis considerably smaller than aggregate unemployment rates

would_suggest. Another explanation, relatcdto this, is that

law CELkwages make the programslese attractive to the yoOth

4,
-15-

than alternative activities. Yet another explanation is that

CETA programs have a bad reputation (virtually all of the

youth we interviewed had previous CETA experience) and the

youth'shy away. It is not possible now to resolve these questions, but they are clearly of interest.

(2) Staff turnover is remarkably high in these programs and has a

disruptive effect. This turnover extends from the Prime

Sponsor level, through the bureaucracy of the providers, and

to the staff working directly with the youth. We have discussed

this issue at some length in many of our interviews and will

have` mare to say about it in our next report.

(3) The bulk of program resources continues to go to in- school

youth. This is a defensible target strategy, although I would

argue that it is incorrect. In important part, however, tbis

is less the result of strategy than it is of the fact that infr. school programs are already in place and geared to handle

,large numbers of youth. The Primes seem to follow the path of

'least resistance.

(4) The Primes, except rarely, lack either the information or political Ahiliti to de-fund bad programs. The Regional Office is

no help since they have no gripotiquality, only on numbers.

This means thabchange tends to occur only through the accretion

of new programs and newinoney.

(5) TO the extent that one can attribute a conscious strategy to

the out -of- school prograMs, it is of behavioral change and

education,' not skill training or job placement. My inclination,

for irony reasons, is to think this is reasonable but it needs to

be specifically addressed and evaluated. Furthermore, it is

26 _it.
-16-

not clear that the programs are given the resources to accomplish very much along these lines.

Planning for FY79

The Primes have by now, of course, allocated the FY79 YETP and

YCCIP funds. I will focus here on the outcome of this allocation as it

affects the programs I have described.

Boston

it

(1) The ABCD-in-schcol program has been continued, substantially unchanged.

(2) Lena Park's YOTI-P program has continued. The Prime has asked

Lena Park to establish a firmer relationship with the

consulting firm providing instruction and to clarify staff

responsibilities.

(3) The Elderly Chores YCCIP program has been continued on

lag money but will not be refunded.

These outcomes are the result of a serious RFP process for YCCIP . .

programs. The Elderly Chores program, for example, simply did not rank

very high. This seems to be on the basis of the proposal rather than

field visits. If field visits and monitoring by the Prime played an

important role in refunding decisions it is hard to see how Lena Park'

survived.

The YETP process essentially was based on re-funding organizations or

demonstrated merit. This resulted from'a political struggle in the

spring between ABCD and' the Prime Sponsor. Hence ATP is the same'as

last year (with the exception of one small prograM, which was ten ated).

The Prime seems to have given up on its effort to establish a city-run

intake and assessment system. .

262
-17-

Eastern Middlesex

In cambidge, Just-A-Start has been essentially unchanged

for YCCIP.

CEOC has been re-funded for YETP. Instead of a media project, they

will run an OJT program. This is quite remarkable given their track

record.

There was no competition for either YCCIP or YETP.

Vitircester

Ilorcester is refunding the same agencies. There have been no

changes in the YOU Inc. or Project Transition programs, though the funding

level has been reduced. The YCCIP program has been revised in several

respects: the ratio' of supervisors to youth has been increased and more

resources will go into educational services. In Parlition, the youth

will work in parks which are currently closed and thus jot visable to

the public.

In addition, lag YCCIP funds from FY78 will be used to establish a new YCCIP program for offenders. This program is not scheduled to

start until mid - January at the earliest, and no details are available.

263
a

/*I....*

.1 , i .; . 6 a . t I .. t

't 1--.;.'-....

r""r i. BOSTON

Fy 1978

P %a

..... 0 f : ;

7.; ft

1 t . .

Z 7-1

:: :,

,*

i. ., .7;

t

r '

..v.;

.

.. ,

en

...

. 5 21 8

To. 1 4: :

;

. . -- . , e

,

, - ,

'

E..

.:

.

. I

q r f f ' : .- 1

A;4. ii

"

ETP ABCD In-School

YDC:

Boys Clubs

245

58X

G.3

73:

262

100%

370

100". IN

1150%

72

30%

N/A

0

Casa del Sol

R.A.P.

25

67, 289

64%

Roxbury Tracking

B.P.S.

EdCo

25

6',, 46

20%

. 152

36%

205

24%

25

6%

28

3%

TOTAL (SUB)

YCCIP

262

23%

446

40%

422' 37%

11 30 . 100%

370

25%

231

16%

861

59%

1468

1007L... 17 27%

1920%

. Charlestown APAC

ESAC

1626%

32

35%

, Lena Park

TEE

TOTAL-(SUB)

(

GRAND TOTAL

1266% fl 1718% '

, 1321% '-. -25

27%

62

100% t

, 93

100%

93

100%

262

22%

625%

446

37%

422

36%

1192

100%

370,

24%

1 93

67

237

15%

861

55%, 1 1561

- 100%

2 ,)"
.

:*1- I .t. ` .

BOSTON

..

i. . V ,

t.) I-. I70

, , c, ;, Le ta

s

ro ro

Ts --

s. G.

\l"""'

et,

f., 4 1.1 C..) w

0 ..

' ! .

° C) ID

.

Total

:I t

771.; 4

. . 4

:

'' ,:a

... I :. t. ' 41 ri

..0. f. V

5

.. . :

t e: g t

.

t

YET In-School

YDC

Boys Clubs

270.802

40%

497,549

100%

00" 36

34,620 C

65,460

10%

i

Casa del Sol

Roxbury Action Program

44,927

42%

oxbury Tracking

Boston Public School

EdCo

2524 %8 ..-- -%%, 262,779

39%

77,589

11%

',281,015

100%

. TOTAL (SUB) , YCCTP

Charlestown arlestown APAC

ESAC

97,549

39%

106,835 676,63b

8% 53%

, 53 ,933

52%

5N°

Lena Park

TEE

TOTAL (SUB).

74,941

31%

56,4311

242,076

100%

242,076

100%

. F4Z,0(b6.83 b/b,b3U

L?"-) 497,919

liq t
vi:.: LIttt f (Ito le poreethexes

'rime Tenser BOSTON

(VS

TO CA

FY 71; as of

.

.!..P

.52. 2e

0-

-... u.-

lj

4.I v4

)cg

. .1VI -4n

00w

, .

. IL "%I n n "

t. t.

. . . 0

Z

-./

... as VI. .Z

-,

k. N

ts. ., 7. it

L

V 'V C c

:-.)

$.u

4 - ,,0

y.,

..

: , pA*

-.. Z.;

. %

- 0.I

-

..

.. ". -* .. v o

.; 01

.1 E Z CI tt0

Sub-Total

1468

100%

717

\49%

751

51%

1060

72%

587

40%

881

60%

1468

100%

443

30%

16

1%

1009 550'13

69% 37% 1%

905 62%

3

-

834

57%

48

3%

- 115

8%

-

.

ABCD In-School

ABGD YDC

,

,

4

. .

Boys Clubs

rCasa Del SQl

.1

. ,, .

.

. I

R.A.P.

Roxbury Tracking

BP.S.

, EdCo

. 26

.
'dir.triblainn9

lin rt-It the cc: s

,

f!1 L/ otir.or . BOSTON

Cir:':

TOTAL

FY 78

Os of

...

to W

.... RI E

to

c.. 40.4

-... v

a)

...a

.0

:Ig

"

ea

.... . . 3C0z

Tin

VI ... al

.0w

t,

ItoV

0

n. o

I. 0

V)

...

11., n

C

ron

I. LI VIx

6.. r

'J

"r"

Z.,

tr's V)

x

.

..1

:... 0

gl

E=

o.L

0

.. 7

r..)

"

Lc; .5

o

-a

:.."

0.

A,

il

4

,

sC., in

.1

.

I.

< a. t

"G". 5

.."

0

V

i

1

t5,

66

71%

17

18%

10

11%

0

-

19

20%

12

13%

0

-

-

-

-

-

..YCCIP

AB TOTAL

93

100%

'70

.75%

,%23

25%

37

40%

40

43%

53

57%

93

100%

82

88%

7

8%

4

4%

YCCIP

Charlestown APAC

. .

-N 9

YCCIP

ESAC

,

, ,

YCCIP

Lena r k

.

"..

.

YCCIP

TEE.

1 .

Ck

- 2'7' .
poi

Wo

Pro

P.

..............., era with

stabutions

arent.ltesios

Or

CUM

TOTAL

FY 78

(as of

9/3,0/7/1

.

a)

r-1

fli 2

2 a: -4

III ,

LI a)

4

a) .5. 4-1 ,

4-1 C

.§ '..

-a

.n

.0.4 0

o

U

ta

.n4, 7), n. 140

CI W

4.) .n

. .n

..., ..1

`j g o v

1M4 it 0 U.) 0 0

'CU1,". 0

4-1aDwosi W

Z

M

Q

Ill 1.4.0x C

''..-4'

I..

././ 0

W>

.

.4M.00TIMW -.....MIO g.IXM oo'41.1=

W

W

. .

-oz, m . M 4.4

(13 44 U 0 ..4 14 C = AOW.ti

.

YCCIP

YETP

: TEC 76

x... 53'/23 75 68/8 is 25 0

. 0 76. 0 - 0 76 . 0 46 76 N/A

YCCIP

. YETP

.Transition 184 87/97 161 155/29 169 0 0 184 0. 0 76 0

o

97 7

.

,

J3 N/A

. o

YCCIP

YETP

1,.E.A. NOT APPLICABLE

49v 49 Q 0 48

--

1 0 0 22 20

.

.

1' N/A

.

#.....

.

.

.., A YCCIP

ject Parks

YETP

49 33/16 40 43/16

YCCIP

YETP

,:.

'

,

... .

-

.

\

OF . o . 2 7A
LW 4 ditilriwiliono

3 porenthesd ,

''''N,

rime (It41g.T

ponsor 0 V. E °1111'Irl'''..

./11/111')5

no 0 C o

1... ..4 ...I N C $.., VI ..-4 ..7,a, @,, RS St I-4 t. c,,

,-1 1.4 'n 0 .: , V f-I 0* .c.4 a.,

t' r 2

0

...I Sr a) 0

RI 1..4

t.) 0. 0 X

O. PI

a, cna) Sr C

a.) 0

a) s... 1., t3

(a 3 0 <4

**I ct) 7

s... 0

.0

4.) 0

c

..441Cl ci

7

t.)

t.)0

s... CJ '

a)0.

AE

t) tql 0 CSr ...a m c

..-4

:34 ;,3 0 F-1 0

- cl,, I-4 3

0 al P. c c a...

- a.) 0 .

..-1 ...I 1.4

I., ai 0

a., ct .

' $8 Ct g,it

',.. gal O PI

cif 0

sr C 0 0

eu s...

),-'0 g V <4

tt) tu a) C

o

s... C. 0.1 0

-4.9 ,-, 0 0

.

se. 0.1 f., . 0

,

. g, YCCIP"

. YETP

R Work TEC

-

. _

*

-

....

'

76

.

13,098

A

.

"" 27;839

A

, '47,111

*

17,972 106,040 .

41 YCCIP

s

. . .. 0., YETP

. . Project Transition

..

' ,

.

.. 184

.. 616

....

.

180,982

4

68,202-

, ,

fr>

41,661

33,924_283,724

)

.

0 - .

41,661

YCCIP

0 YETP

-

. Not Applicable

.

.

is

.

-

.

LEA

Proj. Parks YCCIP I'

- YETP

.- s

514

...

'

.

. 9,290 34,274

. 496 11,855

.

55,915

E.'

YCCIP

Primer Sponsor 7Admipts-tratiYEon

A A

I

. . _

.

.

,

.

t

,

4

.

.

.

.

. ,

.

A

_

f

,

2,287

7,000

,

- 2,287

7 000

496,627
.44

41.

YOUTH EVALUATION PROJECT

Third Interim Report

Oar

tl

Evaluator: Randall B. Ripley, Ohio State University

Field Associates: Grace A. Franklin, William J. Lydon

November 22, 1978

27c

4

.1
z

1 YOUTRWLUATION PROJECT: THIRD INTERIM REPORT

This is the third interim report on 'heimplementation of the Youth ' Community Conservation and Improvement kojects (YCCIP) and Youth Employment

and Training Programs (YETP) in three prime sponsorships in central and , southwestern Ohio: Clark County, Columbus - Franklin County Consortium, and

Greene County. The report follows the topical outline distributed by the

National Council on Employment Policy onJuly 10, 1978, and amended slightly

September 21. In the discussion of each topic there are separate sections

on the three prime sponsorships. There is also a short concluding section

(VIII) of a more general nature.

,The data for this report came from interviews with prime sponsor staff

//

members responsible for implementation, program operators, 'and advisory coyncil

members; observation of advisory council meetings; and examination of relevant

documents, reports, and records.

. The reader of this report needs to be generally aware that the Clark

4 County program began rapidly and has consistently remained in good shape;

the Greene County program begap slowly but has developed well; and the Columbus

program has had serious problems thrbUihout the period since the programikgan

about a year ago.

, . c,

et

The read should also note that at this writing the Geeene,County data

necessary Parts I, II, and III of the report had not yet been colltctedby . the CETA s aff in Greene County. Those data are expected to be ready shortly

and sections I, II, and III for Green54 County will be submitted as an addendum

:to this report as soon as possible. :

4

9

2 7 ;

qa.

0

44.0

1
I. TARGETING

CLARK COUNTY

2

Client Characteristics

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the participants in YETP and

YCCIP in,Clark County from the beginning of the programs through September 30,

19781 A few comments are in order.

In YETP the prime sponsorship appears to be doing well in reaching female

participants and in reaching the black popvtion. All enrollees are economically

disadvantaged although it should be noted that the prime sponsorship does not

44

keep separate information on those participants below the 70% BLS standard.

About a third are from a welfare family.

In YCCIP only one participant was black and only two were from welfare

families (out of a total of 34). The explanation for these low n4Ribers is that

the program was run exclusively in the small town and rural part of the county

outside of the city of Springfield; Veryffew black and welfare faohlies live

outside of the city. 4es obtained only about one-quArter of the YCCIP Slots.

This lower figure is perhaps explained by the nature of the project: outdoor

beau5ification work, which might be expected to interest a lower proportion of

females than the more general work experience activity offered under YETP.

Significant Segments ° ' Clark County identified seven significant segments for YtiP--five in their

original plan in the autumn of 1977 and two (American indians and Spanish-speaking)

. later by virtue of having served some. One of the original significant 'segments

4 was veterans And only one enrollee was projeCted to be'a veteran. In fact, no

., *. - 4 v -

veterans were served. With the four large significant segments the pattern of

. ce was reasonably close to that projected a year ago as the following

'summary makes clear:

if

.2 1? es

o

a

.

io
.0

3

Table 1: Client Characteristics,

YETP & YCCIP, Clark County, 9/30/78

r

YETP ICCIP

# . '4% # %

Male 108 58 25 74

Female& , 77 42

. 9 ,26

. . less than 18 . 142 77 26 76

H1'h school student , 166 ,90 .31 91

1 Hig school dropout 11 6 0 0

Bighschool graduate 8

A

4 3

1 9

(completor & post HS)

\ ,' < AFDC 4 61 33 2 6

--- Ecoriomically Disadvantaged 185 100 34' vo

. 4,. 85% BLS 124 67 32 94

. \ . Family. Head 36 19 ;Q- 0

Family Member 124

.t? 67 '28 82

( . Unrelated Individual 25 14 6 - 18

White <64 35 33' 97

Black & 9ther nonwhite

... 121

. 65 1 3

. Spanish American 1 . 1 0 0

. w yeteran. 0 0 .o 0

Handicapped:

. -4- 1 . 1 - , 0 0

Offender

. ,

1 [ 29 , , !6

. 1 - 3 . UnderamploYed . 1 1 '4 0 0

,' 113 Unemployed , .

. 61 18 53

f'dtE"'4% 1

. . . Other t: 7,

( 71 38 16 47

Total Number Edrollid i 185 \' '100 34 '100

279
Category

4

A tual 1/ Served I Planned # Served % of Plan

Disadvantaged White Males 24 16 150

Disadvanta d'White Females 9 12 75,,

Disadvantaged Black Males 1 8 13

.Disadvantaged Black Females 0 4 0

COLUMBUS

Client Characteristics

Table 2 prIgents cumulative demographic data on participants)enrolled in

YETP and YCCIP through 9/30/78. The data are straightforward, but a few-points

should be noted:

1. There is a balance between male/female enrollment. in YETP, but the

YCCIP program is 907 males: This reflectsthe nature of the jobs in YCCIP

(primarily in bui34ing maintenance, carpentry, insulation, etc.) which are

quite different from the other jobs in YETP, SPEDY, and Title I. Despite the'

CETA Director's personal preferences and the rhetoric in the plan, it has been

difficult to place disadvantaged females into the nontraditional jobs included

in YCCIP.

4 2. Twenty-1.one percent of YET? enrollees are dropouts. Almost 2/3rds of

the YCCIP enrollees are dropouts. 'Rhetoric in the plan would have led one to

3 expect higher proportions Qf dropouts to be enrolled in YETP; this has not

occurred because the one portion of YETP that was going tO focus on dropout--

the Youth Employment lervice Center (YESC) was the ast part of YETP to become

operational, and still is plagued with startup problems: The work experience

part of YETP .in operation since about April, and accounts for more

than half of all. ollees in YETP (58%). The higher service to dropouts in

YCCIP'occurs because the YCCIP prOjects were not so badly delayed as the YESC,

and because the full time nature of many of the project )obs is designed for out

of school youth.

2 Sb
$$ 5

Table 2: Client Characteristics, YETP &

YCCIP, Columbus, 9/30/78

.

. 4

.

t , V YETP . YCCIP

# X 0 a

Male

Female

f

less than 18

High school student

High school dropout

High school graduate

(completor & post HS)

it AFDC

4

Economic/ally Disadvantaged

85% BLS

iatly Head , 'I. Family Member

. Unrelated Individual

White

Black & other nonwhite

Spanish AmeriCan -------4

Veteran

Handicapped

. Offender - Underemployed

\Jnemplded

. .Oder . 0.

.

.I..

'

-

4

.

.

.

I

'

.

370

410

506

453

162

165

383

744

780

56

5'64 160

141

639

0

2

0

, 0

1

779

0

4

*

47

53 % 65

58

21

21

49

95

100

7'

72%

21

__. 18

82

,0*'0

0* 100

*

113

13

. 80

43

__78 _

5 61

125

107

31

91

4

21

105

. 0

2 . 0

i / 0

-126

..- 0 .

,-143.4

.

.

, 6

.

90

10

63

34

.62

4

, 48

99

as25

72

3

17

43,

0

2

0

0

100

0

0

.

.

i

t

... . --\ Total NuMber Enrolled 780 . d 100 .". 126

* 100'

* me less than 1% , C

281
6

3. The Rroportion of economically disadvan ged participants is high

iq both programs (YETP is 95%, YCCIP is 99%). It should be stressed thatiese

high percentages do not reflect concious commitment and screening at intake.

It is merely chance that the youths who applied came from severely

disadvantaged backgrounds; the location of youth intake centers in disadvantaged

neighborhoods perhaps, helps to account for the emphasis.

4. The startup' of both YCCIP and YETP were delayed. in FY 78, although

YETP has been delayed longer and has taken longer to get operational. Intake

4

has been a confused procedure. Even in early November, 1978, the YESC is not fully

operational; -and is having trouble recruiting applicants. Given these facts,

it is important to underscore that all of the client characteristic cisa..k. in

Table 2 (as well as data in subsequent -- gables) are more reflective. of accidents

and random chance than they are of planned decisions, and rational program operation.

1401

Significant Segments

',For YETP Columbus i'entified two significant segments: high school

dropouts and blacks. They expected to serve 990 dropouts and in fact had served

only 162 by September 30, 1978. They expected to serve 12741acks and had

served only'635. These dramatic slips in plan came basically because they

b served only 780 of a planned 1500 enrollees. In distributional terms th

service to blacks as about on target. The plan called for 85% of YETP enrollees

to be black; in fact 81rwere. Dropouts, however, received much less service

than planned. pie pian'called for 66% of all YETP enrollees tombe high school

dropouts; only 21% of actual enrollees were dropouts.

In YCCIP Columbus also identified two significant segments: high schol

dropouts and economically disadvantaged..'They planned to wr.(r_e'llet high

school dropouts but, in fact, served only 78.'They planned to serve 135

economically disadvantaged individuals and, in fact, served 125. in distributional'teris performance' was not -too far away from plans. Columbus planned

4 2' L

p
7 for 78% of YCCIP enrollees to be high school dropouts; in fact, 62% of actual

enrollees were dropouts. The plans called for 90% of enrollees to be

economically disadvantaged; 99% were.

No data were kept on significant segments by specific program activity.

GREENE COUNTY

Data not yet available. This Section will follow shortly .n a separate

addendum.

II. PROGRAM MIX ° CLARK COUNTY

Enrollment and expenditure data are contained in Tables 3 and 4. Most

of the enrollments and expenditures in YETP are in career employment experience

and all...of them in YCCIP are in work experience. The way ClAk County has

structured the programs meant that in FY 78 they were quite different clientele

located in different geographical areas (YETP in the city of Springfield and

YCCIP in the balance of Clark County). Staff fee that in FY 79 in- school

youth will generally be best served by Y;4' when compared to other opportunities

open to youth.' Out-of-school youth will continue to be best served:by Title

I activities. But, in general, the range of possibilities offered any youth.

,(primarily YETP career employment experience, YCCIP work experience, or Title I training, with some opportunities in Public Service Employment and Title I OJT)

is large an the central intake system in Clark County allows the counsellors

to prescribe what they judge to be the best services for any individual.

Individuals rarely come to the intake center knowing the range of possibilities

open; usually they have heard of one specific program from a friend orrelr ative

.. i

and come in seeking it. But.the cioUnsellor has the latitude to prescribe.Other

alternatives when appropriate.

P.

283
Table 3: Enrollments as of 9/30/78 by Program Activity,

Clark County, YETP & YCCIP'

6

Total Enrollment as of 9/38/78: YETP 185; YCCIP 34

Career EmployMent

Experience

-transition

Services OJT

Class9oom

TrainingWork

Experience-

# Z 0 z 0

YETP 167 90- 0 0 2 0 18 10.

YCCIP 0 0 0 0 0 34 0

O

e

4.

OD
Table 4: Expenditures as of 9/30/78 by Program Component

Clark County, YETP & YCCIP

Total Expenditureqbas of 9/30/78: YETP $237,240; YETP 01,366

Career Employment

Experience

Transition

Seryiced

Classroom

Training OJT:

Work

.Experience

Services to

participants Other

z a z' II z z 1

YETP 198,272 84 0 0 -0 0 24,

241

10 0 0 0 14,727 6

YCCIP 0 0 Q. 0 0 c 0 0 31,368 100 0 0

tw,
10 .

, COLUMBUS

' Tables 5 and 6,present enrollment and expenditure data by program

activity for YETP and YCCIP. olthe figures ip the tables require little

explanation. The "Career Employment Experience" program activity is simply

a local term for in-school work experience. The "Classroom Training" `component

includes both participants who received some vocational training and also

those who received the C.O.T.P. (a local version of orientation to the world

of work; no vocational skills are taught in C.O.T.P.). No\data are available

to indicate what protortion.Of the 327 clasdroom training participants

received vocational training compared. to C.0,T:P. - GREENE COUNTY

Data not yet available. This sectiOnAtill,follow shortly in a separate

.addendum.

CLARK COUNTY

III. PLANNED AND ACTUAL PERFORMANCE

Tables 7 and 8 summarize planned versus actual performance in terms-of

both enrollments and expenditures in Clark County during the fist year of ,

A

YETP3and YCCIP. Enrollments in YETP'generally went according to plan (although

at one point earlier in the year there had been hopes of increasing the

experimental OJT.segment of the program to ten slots). Expenditure in YETP,

were less thaAPplanned for career employment services because of some delays in

1/4 ti identifying and enrolling dile planned number of eligible persons. Expenditure

in OJT 'werewell over plan (although still small) because of staff activity on

the part of the subcontractor responsible for OJT when the hopes were for ten

slots.

In YCCIP, the'county schools experienced some difficulty in identifying

and enro ing the planned number of eligible youth who were targeted ( "pottial

28,..>")
1

Table 5: .-Etrollments as of 9/30/78 by Program Activity,

Coiumbus, YETP & YCCIP

ql

Total Enrollment as of 9/30/78: YETP ... 1

780; YCCIP 7, 126

# Career Employment.

Experience

transition

rvices OJTClassroom

Training

Work

Experience

45.3 58 ------10 @

. 0--- -32 F-42

0

.

'15

. --YETP

YCCIP

.

0 0.

. 0 0 0 0

.

-0 126 0.

i 4.

i00

I

290
Table 6: Expenditures as of 9/30/78 by Program:Component

Columbus, YETP & YCCIP

)

I

. . Total Expendi ures as of 9/30/78: YETP .= $532,800; YCCIP = $183,600.

Career Employment

Experience

Tran ition

.ger ces Classroom

Training 1 OJT

Work

Experience

Services to

Participants Other

# r % . ,# # % 0 % # Y. # z

.

(

,

, YETP

.

.

,

252,400 47

.

, 0

J

0,,,204;200

L

...

38 0 0 38,900

.7

. 37,300 7

, 0 0

. YCCIP

Li

, / ik

.0 0

.

le /

0

.

,...

0

. 0 0 0 0 183,60

.

. . 100 .0

,

. 0 0 0-
'

93.

Table 7:4Planned and Actual Enrollments, YETI and YCCIP'

as of 9/30/78, Clark County

, Total #

Enrolled

. Career Employment

Experience - TransitionA,

,Service OJT

Classroom

Training,

Wbtk'

Experience

. YETP - N

' 191

185

97

. 1911

161

. 87

. ,

. -

. 0

0

--,

2

2

100

. 0

d.--. 2318

- 78

Plan (#)

Actual (#)

%tof Plan Achieved

YCCIP 'IP

, Plaii (0)

Actual. (D) ' % of Plan Achieved

40-'

. 34

85

.

. o

0 -I \-- J

d ,

. 0

0

.0

. , 0 -

.

--

0

0

*-

.

, 40

34 . 85

.

.

'

4

A
295

0 Table 8: ,Planned and Actual Expenditures, YET? & YCCIP,

as of 9/30/78, 014rk Cot:11*Y

. TotaX . Expenditures

Career'

Employment

Service

. Transition

Services

Classroom

Training OJT

Work

Experience

.., Servicqs to

Participants Other

.

.

. , 294,545

237,240 . 85

\ ,

.....

265,1360

198,272

75

0

0--

. - 0

0

---

.

. 13,958

'24,241

' 173

.

. 0

0

-7

0

,0--,

.

14,727

14,727

100

. Plan ($)

Actual.(

Z'of Plan

-Achieved

, YCCIP - 1'59,743

31,36$--

53

0

(---

0--

.

. 0

( 0--

_

,

0

0r-

.

.

. . .

. 59,7'43

31;368

53

.

_

, ,

.

.* Plan ($)

Actual ($)

. Z.of Plan

Achieved

2.96,
dropouts") and thus expenditures ran cons.derably'behind

plan.

\\

Table 9 summarizes data on planned and actual terminations by category.

15

In YETP the experience suggests that even a very modest indirect placement

goal was hard to !fleet .and th"at the reaction of the enrollees'to the program

(as well as other factors) produced more than an expected,number of no positive

- /

. terminations. On a smaller scale, YCCIP experience suggested the same lessons.

Even with some of the modest problems encountered, however, Clark County

was moving well along ih YETP toward spending a good share of itt FY 78

money when the accordion-like instructions beganfrriving from the regional

office of DOL on how to spend for FY 78 and how to allow for carryover into

FY 79. Many of the instructions arrived in Clark County much too late (and

sometimes garbled) to have any impact on decisions. Their programeere up

and running and the central staff saw no point in detracting f/rrom their potential

by Week-to-week changes in the signals to the'service deliverers. One YETP

contractor was asked to slow down its enrollment pace a bit bu't-Ntherwise the

original plan--which had been one of the earliest implemented in any .of the prime

sponsors NCEP is studying--was pursued. In fact, the staff's major disappointment about the' 1978 perfortance was th4 underspending in YCCIP because of a

contractor that had some problems in moving swiftly at full capacity.

In YETP the large size of the reduction between the 1978 allocation

($294,p_45) and the 1979 allocatioh ($202,217) leaves the prime sponsor staff

,with'same serious problems. These probldms were aggravated by two factors:

a relatively successful 1978 program (with 97% of planned enrollmentsachieved

and 86% of planned spending achieved, rather than 'the figure of 73% suggested

by DOL much too late, for Clark County;to,work With) and initial planning for

FY 79 based on a $325,000 guess about,an allocation. Final figures suggest

that'the $202,000 allocation car, be supp emented with a carryover of about

40,000. But that still leaves the necesirdy for gutting ,about $83,0.00 from
ti Table 9: Planned and Actual Termination Date, YETP & YCCIP-,

as of 9/30/78, Clark County 4

-

. ,. Total #

. Enrolled

Total

Terminations

Entered

Employment

.

. Indirect

Placements

'' Other

Positive

Terminations -

. 1

_ Non-Positive

Terminations ,

.. YETP

191

485

97

1

e $5 - 160

188

)

.

.

.r.-

._... , 15

22

147.,

,

.

.

. 8

225

.

,

_

,,

56

95

. . 170

,..:

.

12

43

358

.

, ,

-

''-'7Plan (II)

Actual (#)

% of Plan

Achieved

...

... YCCIP

' 40

34

85

.

.

. 40

. 34

.85

,

.....

.

,

.

,

.

.

. 125

:

20

1 c0

.

.

..

.

.

29

22

76'

,,.

,

, 7 11

157

° .

,

Plan (Q)

Actual (Q)

c, % of P an

. Ac eyed

. 1

29E

k 299
17

planned expenditures. Unfortunately, a $20,000 attempt to resuscitate OJT fOr

youth through a contract with a new deliverer (the Employment ServiCe) is likely

to be cut altogether, in part because it is the one109program for which

the contract has not yet-been signed. The remaining $63,000 is likely to be

"found" by cutting both enrollee slots and staff sldts on a proportional basis,

. 1 between the major deliverer (YCDS) and a smallerSeliverer of.services for youth

id the juvenile justice system (YES). The contract with the Springfield City

Schools can alsb be 'cut prpportionally if necessary as long as the 22% minimum

is still given to the schools.

YCCIP for FY 79 presents no particular fiscal probleMs even though

IN\

the

allocation was,cut substantially (from $59,743 in FY 78 to $46,849 in FY 79).

.4 The saving factor, even though the staff was not particularly happy about it,

was the underperformance of the 1978 contractor (dropped by,mutual agreement

for'FY 79") that left a carryover of about $28,000. This leaves Clark County

. with almost $751000 available for YCCIP for FY 79 and they had planned far...,

only $71,000.

--^

r

. COLUMBUS : Tables 10, 11, and'12 present figures on planned versus actua1 performance

for enrollments, costs, and terminations for YETV'and YCCIP'in Columbus as of

9/30/78. The data for tables were taken from the revised quarterly t _

reports submitted by the prime sponsbr to DOL. During the program year the

prime sponsor staff ha4, modified plans to awer the number to be served in

YETP from 1500 to 623, and in YCCIP from 150 to 140. A year end report was

prepared using the lawer revised figures, but that was superseded by a subsequent

ased on the original planned figures. The "corrected" PSS, 'using original

goals,'was used in developing Tables 10, 11, and 12. The actual performance of

-5 Columbus for YETI'. compared to original plans was poor. YCCIP performance was

300
410

Table 10: Planned and Actual Enrollments, YETP and YCCIP

as of 9/30/78, Columbus

.

.

. Total #

Enrolled

-Career Employment

Werience

Transition

,Services

, OJT

, Classroom

Training

Work

Experience

YETP1500

780

52 ,

_

, 459453

99

.

: 00--

...

,

-670

0

1041

327

. 31

c

50

.15

30

'

-,

. .Plan ( #)

Actual. ( #)

. % of Plan Achieved

.

, YCCIP

.

, . 150

. 126

8-4

.

. 0

0-

. .

.

.

'

. 0

0 . --

0

0--

. . 0

0 - , --

: 150

126

84

. Pl4n(#) ° Actual (6

% of Plan Achieved

Source: "Corrected" ISSs for YETP and YCCIP for 9/39/78

/'

,301

co 302
Table 11: Planned and Actual Expenditures, YETP Y

N ,

. Career . . ..

.. Total Employment Transition Classroom Work , Services to

) Expenditures Service Services Training OJT Experience Participants Other

YETP ' . . Plan ($) $1,500,200 412,890 53,000 507,900 32,700 309,100 185,900 0

Actual ($) 532,800 252,400 0

.., 204,200 O 38,900 37,300 0

. . % of Plan 36 62 .0 40 0 13 ".' '20 --

Achieved 4 4 ' i

.

. \

YCCIP .'

. ".

Plan ($) 348,800 0 0 0 0\ 348,800 0 0

Actual 1$) 183,600 0 0. 0 0 183,600 0 0

1 % of Plan 53' 0 0 '0 0 53 0 0

' a Achieved

.. . --

_,--

. .

1-4 0

303

r
cti Table lit Planned aid Actual Termination Data, YETP & Tan",

as of 9/30/78, Columbus

,Total 0

Enrolled

Total

Terminations

Entered

Employment -%.

Indirect

Placements

Other

Positive

Terminations

, Non-Positive

Terminations

YETP

-1500-

'780

52

. 9A4

213

29

. 2-50

44

18

,

'.EE 215

17

8

f

, 185

128

69

_I- .

5Q9

101

, 20

Plan (0)

, Actual (#)

% of Plan

Achieved

.

.

YCCIP

150

-126

84

A.

- 68

63

'93 .

.

12

15'

125

f

c

. 4:.

'6

3

50

it

.29 , 17

59.

27

\ 31

115

, .

Plan (9)

Actual t0)

vZ of Plan

Achieved

of

:46
21

also under plan, but acceptable. As Table 10 shows, overall enrollments for

YETP were at only -52% of plan. The Career Employment Experience (the in-school

;, work experience portion funded by the 22% funds) was the only program component

of YETP that was fully operational and up to planned service levels by

th_e end of FY 78. All of the YCCIP enrollees were in work experience, and,84i

of the planned service level was achieved, an acceptable figure considering the

late start of the YCCIP projects.

Table 11 underscores the failure to spend the yputh moneyNkue to late,

slow implementation. For YETP, barely one-third of the $1.5 million dollar

1

grant way spent in FY 78; for YCCIP, barely one half of the, grant was spent. .' Althou:ki enrollments for YETP's Career Employment Experience program companent,and

YCCIP's program component were close to planned levels, the expenditires for

these activities were well under plan because the enrollments ocptirred so late.

-- in the program year. O Table 12 presents data on planned versus actual terminations, from YETP

and YCCIP. YETP achieved far fewer placements than planned (only 44), but YCCIP

achieved a few tore pladements than, planned. Few of the placements were

indirect placements, however, and none of the people placed got jobs in positions

. paying more, than $2.99 per how.. All of the YCCIP-placements were in positions

\

.0., paying the minimum wage or less. ----_. The 'reason for the inadequate performance is, of course, the local delays

in the implementation of the youth programs. For YETP there were delays in the

selection of a service provider and then in the gearing nlY of the in house-run

YESC. For YCCIP there were elays in negotiating contracts, and then delays in

contract approyal by city ouncil. BeCause implemen ion was so late. intak

and entollment were uncoordinated and became extremely chaotic toward the en

of the fiscal, year. Late in the year intake staff took on a body count

mentality. Delays were aggravated by uncoordinated staff administratiOn and'

lack of staff leadership. , 3 U 71.
22).

. The planning-sftff did modify the YETP plan during FY 78 to decrease

planned levels of service given the implementation delays., In the 3rd

modification the service level was decreased to 623, with regional office

i approval,' evenseough the modification was submitted 'after the 30 day limit.

Modification downward was done in'an effort to improve the-ConSortium's year

end planned versus actual performance.,-but as mentioned above, the original

__planned figures were substituted in the year end quarterly reports, for reasons

no one seemed able to'explain.

Given the sericts local implementation delays,DOL-imposed delays were

not highly salieilt, and were even welcome. DOL'delays caused no burden in

Columbus. The Columbus staff had no difficulty adhering to the_DOL mandate /

to limit FY 7,8 spending to 73% of the grant, since theywere not even clbse

to spending that amount by the end of the fiscal year. In fact, although

the FY 79 allocation for 'YETP is a big cut(downto $948,000 from $1.5 million

I* in 78), the FY 79 BIS shows a total of $2.1 million being spent for the year.

Nearly $1 million were carried over fromFY 78. Similarly, the large carry out

for YCCIP allows tfii-FY 79 program to be budgeted at $414,000 despite a cut

in '79 allocations-to $269,00 from $316,000.

GREENE COUNTY

Data not yet avai/labie. This section 11 follow shortly in'a separate,

2 addendum.

One substantive point can be made here even before receipt of the dat ,

however. Two cuts in allocations appear to the staff at this point to coniiain'

the seeds of disasterafor YEDPA 'there. One cut is that in the YEDPA programs

0 themselves (YETP went from $164;000 to $8 ,000; YCCIP went from $33,000 to _ $28,000). planning had been predicated on the basis of about 60 to 65% more

money than was actually allocated. The second cut is that for Title VI: from

42.5 million to $600,000. This ariects 'jEDPA because many of the supervisory

308

a
tl 23

personnel in service deliverers were Title VI enrollees. They are likely

to lose their jobs and there art no resources with which to teprace them.

IV. PLANNING FOR FY 79

CLARK COUNTY t.",*

. i.. ..

. In Clark County an intelligenti staff is in a constant process bOth of

learning from experience and also thinking abstractly about gaps,in the employ- *

ment and training mix they offer. They take planning seriously, they take goals

seriously, and they take-monitoring ongoing programs seriously. This means

that there is co stant interaction of ate, experience, concepts, and goals

0'

that allows the staff,toddentify and act on operational problems; to rethink

and restate goals constantly bOth internally and in interacting with other

J 4 actors in the system such as service deliverers, advisory. cc P

uncils: and elected

:

officials; and to plan for and.execute changes that improve progr

-414t. I Thus, in keeping wi41 this admirable pperal way of proceedIng, the staff'

during 1978 identified problems, of varying sizes. Some could be acted on 'and solved

immediately. Some required differ*ent planning outcomes f r FY 79. Soine are just

now emerging and will require'action in the future. Fortunately, the learning

capacities and perceptiveness about both-problems and possibleso4itions on f,

4

the part of the Clark County staff are high'and, barring cofigrespional or DOLT . action that makes a shambles of the program, the future should lead tecon5inuqd

improvemefit of already basically Sound programs.

One con=Ing problem area during 1978 was thie,axrangement of academic

credit for program experience. This was not 4,4ieved 'during. 1978 but has been

achieved for 1979 for both YETP and YCCIP.

, . Another continuing area of concern was Ed increase the quality of work

sites. This has teen by constant oversight cf the performance of die principal

4 'service delivere responsible for work site development aid considerable

309
24

4 discusSion of the ingredients that make for a quality site,("jawtoning" is an

apt phrase for whit occurred). Quality is also'being improved by a formal

.change that was'introduced in 1979: the career development office in the

,Springfield City School--hst certify each work site as career-related.

Some concrete problems were identified with individual programs in 1978.

One supervision problem in YCCIP was identified and immediately corrected

through negotiations between the deliverer (Clark Codnty schoolsrand the

prime sponsorship staff. Another problem was identified as the inability of the

, (deliverer chopn to,undertake youth 0JT underYETP to do so. The program was,

in effectuspended-for 1978, and then the 1979 planning prpcess reinstituted it

4 with a different deliverer in order that the idea could be tried again (although,

as previously noted, the-shortage of money for 1979 may prqyent that from happening).

Some administrative problems were identified in. terms of the staff dealing

with the Springfield City school but constant interaction on these questicns

has improved the situation. And t;he programmatic element of the public sccialls

role--career education--is thought to be 4ulte successful. Continuing4discussiOns'

i .4004. stress to the schools the necessity of measuring what they-Are accomplishing

`(more "jawboning"). But, in general, the youth coordinator ox the prime

sponsor staff is strong in his belief that the "shotgun wedding" of CETA and

'the public schools is working in Clark County,

Another specific problem that was identified and solved 'through planning

' for different arrangeMents for 1979 was the inability to aittliact or even.,

identify minority (black) participants for YCCIP. By changing both deliverers

and the geographical location of the program for FY 1979 this problem should

easily be rectified.

Two broad general areas of concern first emerged in FY 78 and are continuing

to occupy the time and attention of the staff. The first involves the whole

package of outreach, recruitment, intake, and assessment acti;ities. In a

specific, concrete sense the staff reacted to s. operational problems by

I ;)
25

eating a three-person committee to make enrollment decisions--one individual

from YCDS, one from the Springfield schools, and Qne from the prime sponsorship

staff.' But a larger problem remains: a number of programs (including YEDPA 4

Programs) are not attracting as many applicants as previously. A first

. response to this problem has been the dpecial targeting of welfare clients

(with a plan for pUblicizing that targeting to all relevant agencies and

organizations) for all CETA programs, including YEDPA.

e second broad area of concern Involves the relatively large gap between

YEDPA program 15cperience for a participant and any potential for private sector

placement. The prime sponsor staff i determined to focus on placements in the

private sector for YEDPA participants. They had a small vocational exploration

component.in the SPEDY program for summer, 1978, and would like to expand that

component and make it part of the year-round yorth program. Theypre also

beginning to think.about ways in-which they can link YEDPA programs with the new

Title VII Private Sectors Initiative Program. -- This constant learning and feedback process was reflected in formal waySN

in the 1979 planning decisions. The change in YCCIP is a direct result of what

was learned. The county schools were found not to'reach the youth most in

need of services and were also somewhat blow administratively. Thus the 1979

YCCIP program was split between a central city YMCA..(with participants referred,

from the Ohio Youth Commission) and the county Children's Home. The YMCA project

might conceivably fall through Vitt if it ddes therime sponsorship might well

turn to an expertenced deliverer focusing on inner city youth, with a large

component of black youth: OIC. And, presumably, the Ohio Youth-Commission

reference requirement would hold (OYC deals with offenders, potential offenders,

4/

and youth generally thought to be "in trouble").

SimilarL , the decision to replace YCDS with OBES as a deliverer of a small

OJT component in YETP was made formally in theAdfanning process.

31
26

In short, Clark County is able to change incrementally and .constantly to

deal with new events andnew perceptions and' o plan ahead. When appropriate,

these changes come in the formal planning cycle. They are not 1 d to that

0 \ 11 cycle, however4 but can, instead,, occur at any time.

jj In plahning for FY 79 RFPs were issued for bothETP(4.and YCCIP. Five

prqposals came in for YETP and parts 4-four were funded. The:fifth prbposer,

was shifted to YCCIP. Three of the four funded were the FY 78 deliverers. The%

new deliverer was the employment service; selected to do a smalfOJT program.

For YCCIP only two,zroposals were received and both of them had to be

stimulated by the staff. The FY 78 deliverer (county schools) did not apply.

Both of the two organizations submitting proposals were funded.

COLIJIEBUS

'. 'Resolution of Earlier Problems

In previous reports certain serious problems in the Columbus YETPand

YCCIP programs were identified and described, the most important of these

being serious delays in implementing the major part of YETP, underecaffing in

the C planning unit, understaffing in the operations youth unit, and / confusion

-0" over provision of acIdemic crtdit. All of these prdblems are still present

.e.-.) and

,... -.... none have.been_resoIved. No significant new problems have arisen, however.

- 1. The startup ofYETP in Collumbus, was initially delayed while the CETA

Director decided which operator was to run the yoth center. She overturned the

results.of the RFP and decided the center allipuld'be run in. house, but the dicision

V

was made very late. Prior to May, there were no formally designated administratilze

, staff. The Youth Employment Service Center (YESC) did not openlits doors

until June 19, and throughout the summer i1 has been plagued with basic

operating problems like getting clerical and counseling staff, getting desks

and typewriters, and getting ribbons'for.the typewriters. Applicants to the

YESC during the summer quickly recognized the confusion and inefficiency, and

\

312
Pa 27

the number oT applicants has diminished. In short, the implementation of

YESC, which is the major part of YETP in Columbus, continues to be a major

problem.

2. The number of the planning staff has stabilized at 5,(a former planner

is now in charge of all in-house youth opefations; a current planner'had been

IAA

on loan to opel;ate the fledgling°YESC until late August). There is no, assurance

that the size of the planning staff will remain stable, however; it has.been

on for planners to be pulled out of planning and put into operations

when serious problems arise. (It'is easier ii' Columbus transfer staff

laterally on temporary assignment than to hire new staff quickly.) Also the

0144. planning staff laCks depth and expeFience. Understaffing in: the planning unit

was a serious problem during the FY 79 planning process for 41 titles, because

/so many grants had to be prepared in a very s rt span (Title I,-II,'

VI, HIRE II, STIP II, YETP,.YCCIP,sand a dem,nstration Employment Oppoitunities

program grant.)

3. Staffing in the operations youth unit has been dragging.:-Initially

there were too few administrative staff to coordinate the YETP program and

the other youth programs. The administrative staff gradually came on board,

but there has been a delay in getting the operational staff for-the.YESC hired- -

s r cleiks, counselors, interviewers, and othefs. Even in November, vacancies

remain at YESC.,, The city's civil service system imposes a cumbersome

hiring process, and apparently there is no way it can be ciroumvented.or,,

eXempted. The city's purchasing process, which also controls CETA pUrchases,

is another time consuming procedure that slows up CETA programs, incltiding

YETP and YCCIP. The delays fdr YCUP were aggravated by a time consuming

requirement (in the city charter) the ci y council approve every single

contract, which meant that cont cts for projects with the 3 YCCIP project

9perators had to be negotiated by staff and then approveJ4by city cil.

All of these bureaucratic requirements impose delays, but the delays hive

13

lett
28

been aggravated by a lack of coordination among relevant staff units and a '

lack of perceptible leaership from the Director' a office. No one was in

Ir charge or had authority .cO simplify procedures, so the implementation has

proceeded very slowly.

4. Academiccredit is still an issue that is causing confusion. The prime

sponsor staff and the Columbus Public Schools have been unable to negotiate a

mutually acceptaPle posiiion whereby youth participants can receive academic

credit. The FY 79 plan talks glowingly about the aspirations, but during FY 78

no participants in YETP, YCCIP, or SPEDY received academic credit. It would

appear that the school system is reluctant to have the prime sponsor dictate to

them about academic curricula; it is possible this attitude is stimulated by

the cursory role that the schools have been granted in YETP.

Some of the reasons for lack of progress in correcting these problems have

been mentioned 1n the above paragraphs. One of the most important reasons is

that the Columbus Director has not publicly acknowledged that problems exist

and specified what can be. dope to correct them. It is unclear whether the

. \Director even recognizes the seriou ess of the YETP-problems. Even though

other staff may acknowledge the r,oblems, they do not have the authority to do

anything about them, and the organizational context in the Columbus CETA program

doe not encourage staff to take the initiative and take risks. Attempts to

MProve the situation that have been made hive occurred on a piecemeal, uncoord-

, inated basis. There has 1.:Ttena federal presence to force improvements. The

federal regional office has been passive and paper-oriented.

Comparison of ri 78 and FY 79 Planning and Results

There was very little to distinguish the 79 yout1631anning processes from

the 78 processes; Given the late start of most parts of the youth programs, there

was little substantive knowledge on which to draw, and the staff units agreed

that the programs should be continued intact. The/youth council concurred. There

was a special hearing for public agencies to make presentations (each presentor

314
29

was limited to 5 minutes) and this constituted the main vehicle for community -

based organizations input. The grant applications were drawn up by the planning

staff.in late August and early September in a rush after instructions from the

regional office were received late August (plans were due Sept. 9).

There was really no improvement in'the time available to plan when the

two years are compared; the head planner indicated that no instructions had been

received prior, to th101ate August CETA lig6er on YETP and YCCIP. There was

o no substantive review of the, first year progress because everyone conceded)that

the programs had not been in place long'enough tb assess them. There was,

therefore, no heed to solicit substantive comments froth CBOs and the advisory

council. There was no attempt made by the CETA staff to solicit input from

the LEAs. The nonfinancial agreements were simply extended through'the new

program year as a matter of course.

The substance of the program plans for YETP and YCCIP have changed very

little from their FY 78 versions. The YETP program for FY 79 consists of the

following parts:

1. I/S work experience for 320 youth is called"Career Employment

Experience. This activity' constitutes a straight extension of Title I I/S

work experience, which is also operated by the prime sponsor staff. Part of

at

the LEA 22% funds pay for this activity. School counselors certify the worksites

1 n-tribute -to the-youth's-career-goats:

2. Classroom training for 1300 consists of two activities. The Career

Occupation Training Program (C.O.T.P.) is a large scale orientation t9 the world

of work for 1300-part4cipants. The orientations cover job application prOcRdures, resume preparation, communication skills, and other skills related to

entry into the labor market. The staff did, a needs,assesament that showed this

kind of activity was needed by youth and was notibeing provided elsewhere.

The second part of classroom training is vocational training for entry

level positions in one of three occupational areas, all growth areas in

[ .
Columbus--food,service, warehousing, and audio equipment installation.

(Vocational 'traitiling is subcontracted to private vendors.) About 150 youth

will receive this trainiv in FY 79.

3. 0/S work experience for about 115 dropouts will be work site (job)

experience.

4. Vocational Exploration conducted by HRDI is a repetition of a summer '

program. About 120 youth will receive an elaborate introduction to the local

labor market, the free enterprise system, collective bargaining, and some

hands-on exposure to local nccupa.tions. (This activity was planned for FY.78

but not implemented.)

5. Counselor training will be funded by the remaining part of the 22%

funds. The staff has arranged upgrading sessions designed to make high school

counselors more aware of the needs and expectations of private employers.

Presentations by business representatives and a tour of a large warehouse in

the city are planned for November, 1978. (This was originally planned to

occur in 1978 and was deferred to the FY 79 program year.)

As the above description should make clear, only about 150 youth will

P receive vocational training and a

1

salable skill; about 435 will get a work

experience job, and the rest will get C.O.T.P. and testing.

The YCCIP program was also continued without changes. A decisiopf made

not to use a formal RFP for soliciting applications; the three vendors in

place were continued primarily for lack of time and lack of track record due to

late start up. All three projects involved weatherization and other home

repair.

The Lessons of 1978

There have been few learning experiences going on in the YET? and YCCIP

programs. The delayed implementation of the programs meant, that few substantive

lessons could be garnered, even if that had been a priority of the staff, which,

31 Fj
31

it was not. The nicest thing one could say was that they needed more time before

they could assess their youth programs and look for substantive lessons.

The 78 program year certainly did suggest procedural lessons for planning

(e.g., more time to plan, more staff to plan, betteriidormation on performance)

but the planning process for 79 was no different than the 78 process had been.

Even though the planning staff were cognizant of the lessons for planning

processes, they were unable to do anything different because they lacked

the staff and the time and the necessary information and the authority to

do anything to make changes. The DOL planning process time frame amounted to

less than two weeks.

The 78 program year also suggested proCedural changes for staffing for

the YESC Component of YETP. But again, no'changes have been made to facilitate

better implementation. The same civil service regulations remain, the

purchasing requirements, the city council role, the failure of the Director

ti to delegate clear authority to a staff person and to coordinate staff units.

The prime sponspr's annual report is typical of thg public face that the Columbus

CETA program display4 The report, in describing the YETP program piogress

in FY 78, did not hint at thdldepth of implementation problems. It stated

merely that "significant progress" was being made in achieving 13 listed goals,

and it said that the YESC was in the process of developing its "fullest

potential." In an atmosphere where failure to implement and enroll are not

acknowledged as problems, the question of lessons learned:is virtually

meaningless in operational terms.

To date, the process of learning lessons and applying them does not

exist in Columbus because Columbus has not reached a state of development'in

YETP and YCCIP where rational planning is followed by rational monitoring,

, . with feedback to service deliverers and planners' and corrective actions and

modificatiOns as needed. Coldffibus continues merely to cope with daily

problems. The immediate problemalys dominates attention; "lessons" and

5

long yange planning are luxuries thusfar foregone.

317
ro

GREENE COUNTY

32

Planning for the FY 78 youth programs inGreene County was `very difficult.

With two months to complete YETP and YCOIP narratives, staff were rushed; there

was no room for error and little time for revision and area-wide review. As a

, 4

result the Greene County plans were late, receiving conditional approval from'

RDOL in about Novemb), 1977. Greene County, Employment and Training Administration

m

ai5°

'hired one parttime youth'coordina r to assume responsibility for the new youth

programs and SPEDY. She wrote grant proposal under the pressures of time,

///

little prior experience, inconsistent and changing guidelines from DOL and

with technical assistance materials that always seemed to arrive too late to

be helpful. As a result the documents that emerged as Greene County's youth , plans in FY 78 had only the cosmetic appearance of having been systematically

coordinated with complet'd plans for Titles I, II, and VI; were only

approved by IDOL in a very cursory fashion,; practically ignored any procedures

for knowledge development; and lacked the innovative character DOL admonished

prime sponsors to strive for with this new youth program.

Planning for FY 79 was also characterized by time constraints and a shortage

of resources as well as contradictory messages from DOL (especially 27 percent

carryover the Prime sponsor had not planned for). Yet the planning period for

FY 79 was less hectic than before

youth coordinator, the county has

made the fundamental decision not

because n Gpeene County has a full-time

had one year's experience, and the staff has

to change the FY 79 plans in any significant

way from FY 78. Programmatic changes in Greene County's FY 79 plan were by and

large the result of funding changes, :ssues over which they had no control.

The decision to go wi an adaptation of the 78 plans was based upon the conclusion that the first plan had been a good one. That conclusion was based upon

a formal evaluation conducted by a local evaluation team between AuguSt 3 and

August 23, 1978.

Greene County staff claim to have learned a good deal during the first

hcprogram year of Y -YCCII; much of this learnipg was confirmation of hunches

4 318
33

they had when they assembled last year's plan. They also ditcovered that some

elements of the youth program could be modified to improve its implementation.

These findi gs hlive been incorporatedin the new-plans.

8t reported that the widespread participation required by tie

regulations had been good for the youth programs. Community groups and individuals

were an "innovative resource." This participation resulted in cooperative

interaction withthe carpenters' union, a link forged last year that Greene had

never experienced before. Their dealings with Central State University through

the youth council had resulted in tutojing services that were cost free and helpful

to the area youth enrolled in the programs.

The'youth council hat worked as a protective shield for lhe CETA staff on a

_ number of occasions: the council evaluated requests for SPEDY and gave it to CAC

without a formal bidding procedure. The council made its decisiod and gave a

. formal statement to defend its choice. Any political heat that might have

been generated by the decision was deflected by the council away from the staff

lo couldn't .e\asily react to political pressure in a political gay themselves.

,; Staff concluded that the presence of youp on the council may have been a

good experience for them, but that it had very little effect programmatically.

Staff intended to tap the sentiments,of youth members through interviews as

of the,evaluation,

The youth staff have conclude4 after a year's experience with YETP that OJT

for high school aged youth is not feasible. They have inferred that youth

16 to 20 are not yet ready to invest injob,security of a career commitment.

Rather they believe that OJT is better suited for adults who ark "ready to get on

the track." They also have concluded that projects like winterization as well

as pre-apprenticeship ptograms are also better suited for adults. In place of.

these approaches, youth staff would prefer very well planned *Ott experience

.

. . slots, emphasizing exposure, good adult role Models, supervision, and jobs that

provide experience, self esteem, and a product the youth can see and feel.-

, . 31
34

0,* Greene County currently uses OJT for in-school youth administered by the local

office of OBES. They want to use it in'the future for out-of-school youth and

on a full time basis. Staff reported, however, that they still were not sure

if OBES would go after the out of school youth.

The lessons learned from a year's:effort to cultivate a new relationship

with the secondary schools are sobering.. All interaction and cooperation

Greene received from the publid school system in the past year had been through

the personal efforts of one individual, the superintendent of the Greene County

Joint vocational high school. All the other schools that feed students to the

JVS claimed to be unable to provide any support. They were willing to take

the free labor, but in general,, superintendents of traditional, nonvocational high

schools in the county were uninteested. Their view, staff said, was "we don't

want federal money." Rather they want CETA to take the bad eggs out of their

schools-. S

CETA staff also developed impression from one year's experience with

the new youth programs that "sc ools donst teach what these kids need-to knOW."

That is, career guidance is dismal in the non-vocational high schools. The

CETA youth staff discovered eapiy that the education community in Ohio is suspicious

of manpower progranS that seek to award credit, for experience acquired outside

the classroom. In Greene this has melt that the situation in Ohio of np clear

policy on credit for nontraditional learning experience continues and that

in the absence of clear policy schools:will grant credit on the recommendation,

of a voc. ed. superintendent as l&ig as it is warranted by very vague state laws

(

and regulations. This condition persists, and it makes planning for this aspect 4

of the youth programs uncertain and problematic. Youth staff did indicate, however,

that they felt this paranoia and suspicion maybe lessening at the State Department

of Educationas officials there discover that CETA will not drain the schools of

warm'bodies.they need for tate'bUdget funds.

32, 0
35

The formal evaluation exposed several weaknelses in operational procedures

staff plan to improve in FY 79. First, this year's SPEDY schedule did nqt

permit time for sufficient orientation of new workers. this, staff argue,

) was due largely to the delay of money from DOL, and it resulted in the practice

. .. of hiring new workers at the same time that the program was starting up.

4 Second, CETA and CAC stiff agreed that caseloads per counselor in FY 78 were

too high for optimum participant service. Cdtrent,wedkly worksite visits to

pick up timesheets and to delive.paychec does not allow for Sufficient time tq

. - as , meet participants' seeds or to discuss pro lems. This has resulted in the

practice of "trouble shooting" on situations that might have been prevented.

Also a turnover in counselling staff resulted in some confusion and lets effective

service. Third, staff learned some job sites--especially \naintenance job

sites--provided insufficient opportunity to learn new skills, and they

discovered that the practice of delegating and dispersing supervision

responsibilities among several people without clear policy about who was in

charge led to lax supervision and questions among participants about who was'in

charge.

Staff assembled a set of recommendations listing a number of alternatives

to address and correct these problems. These have been included iithe'79 plan

where they have affected implementation of the program or costs of the program.

Staff have also attempted to begin filling'the vacuum in.knowledge development

in a commendable fashion, given their resources. They still interpret that

provision as a goal beyond their means because it has been widely perceived

as admonishing prime sponsors to engage in experimental and quasiexperimental

practices. Never4eless, staff have assembled a set of questionnaires designed

for participants, staff and site sponsors to collect attitudinal data on

r

respondents' experiences and perceptions of the elements and effects of the

two programs. Staff have attended two workshops--one in Tiliedo and one in

Chicago dealing with innovation in manpoirer programs and how best to serve

321
o.

sr 36

youth. And finally local staff have begun to collect anecdotal records

participantsaS a source of soft information which hey plan to file for

.counselor use and possibly for planning at a future ate.

The formal evaluation conducted at the endsof the summer also prqvided

some lessons on the usefulness of evaluation itself. They discovered that in

addition to providing an opportunity to check -up on subcontractors, evaluations

provided an opportunity for members of the public to be'exposed to the worksites'

and wAt can be done with same,disadvantaged youth in the new programs. Thus

evaluations conducted by staff with lay perticipation can have enormous PR Value.

Staff have concluded not only to condhct another formal evaluation next year,

but also'to schedule three monitoring exercises over the progrim year beyond

afr desk monitoring of records and reports again with the idea in mind of exposing

the 'public to the things \hat happen in these programs, and the variety of

things going on at diverse worksites.

V. DATA

CLARK COUNTY, -111.1

'-The MIS

that seem to

system in-Clark County has 4 number of quality control procedures

helpproduce good data fot vthe use of the staff. They also hive

close ties and good monitfing of the deliverers and so can supplement the

O required "hard" data with more qualitative kinds of datg; They can also check

. any "hard" data that does not Seem-to be'baccurate_on an.ininitive le;e1.

The staff also addidatatequirements from a variety of sourcesgeneted both

internally and from deliverers--when they frame questions to which they want

answers. In short, data for sensitive management- of high quality is both

generated and, more important, used in Clark Comity.,

^ct

k.)

3 00
O

37

COLUMBUS

The Columbus CETA system is not highly data oriented. Data in Columbus

are kept to a minimum. The MIS section of tht Department of Community Services

0 (DCS is CEIA's home agency) is responsible for compiling client characteristic

and program activity enrollment data. Planners have no role in data collection

Once compilgd, data are not always readily distributed to staff, and planners

sometimes have trouble getting data.

The fiscal section of DCS is responsible for collecting the financial

data and compiling it. Again, planners have no role, and often data collected

are not distributed to other staff, including planners.

./

The, only data that are collected on a regular and systematic basis are those-1'

necessary to prepare the required fedeial quarterly reports. Very little

additional information is collected. Information on client characteristics

by program activity, or terminations by program activity, are not among the

si items collected. An annu 1 survey of SPEDY participants has been conducted by

- t . youths operations staff, and the evaluation staff Also collected data on

4

test results of YETP applicants-during the summer. (Those test results showed.

that, of the 197 persons processed as of 9/30/78 at the,YESC, all of them,

regardless.of race, eex, I/S or 0/S status, were functioning at only a6tti grade'.

level for reading and math. This is the first time that tests have been giyen

and analyzed in this fashion.)

The disinclination of the Columbus staff to collect data'is related to

0 . their relative lack of self evaluation and monitoring. In general, data are

collected only to.meet DOL report requirements. There is little data analysis

A and?ttle lihk between data and planning and program operations. Knowledge

development, which might be considered a supplementary, type of data collection,

did not .exist during FY 78, and shows little sign of being revived in FY 79.

)

323

a P
GREENE COUNTY

Greene County collects all fiscal and participant data required by DOL

for quarterly reports and annual program narratives. It conducts a formal'

evaluation annually and plans to monitor subcontractors and worksite sponsors

three times per year in FY 79. During the August evaluation the CETA evaluator, 4

contractspfficer and the program coordinator examined all fiscal records and

Ar! participant files for accuracy and compl gness.-

Greene has, however, gone a step bey nd minimal requirements of data

collection specified by DOL. They have assembled interviews designed for Title III

_participants, supervisors, program directors, counselors, and intake workers.

They assess such areas of inquiry as 1) adequacy of operational procedures and

services, 2) meaningfulness of work and career employment, enhancement of

participant. employability and career goals, 4) attitudes of service deliverers

. . toward 'goals of the youth program, 5) adequacy of ark-site supervision,

6) participant cooperation and 7) participant satisfaction.

Evaluations are concluded with collegial "rap sessions" and Greene has

begun the practice of compiling records on all participants. This is a

cputbelor/supervisor joint responsibility.

VI. EVALUATION

CLARK COUNTY

Self-Evaluation

Clark County staff are constantly assessing and questioning their own

performance in YEDPA (and in all other`CETA programs too). They collect data

required by the Department of Labor and also collect any other information

they think relevant to keeping close track of where they are in their programs..../

Goals are the subject of continuous attention and.are translated into specific

operational concerns. The two overriding goals for all CETA programs-in the

32,4
39.

county are to integrate the various programs and to aim at private sector

employment as the-final outcome for as many participants as possible. Thus

YETP and Ycqi0 have always been viewed as integral parts of the-total CETA

program. A vajor integrating deviae has been the central intake that is --

responsible for all CETA participants. A second integrating force is the fact

that the central staff is relatively small. This means that although the

youth programs administrator is responsible for day-to-day operations of

YEDPA programs, the director, the MIS manager, and the central intake director

are also well awareof the details of the programs and how they fit the total

CETA package. The Title I adult training administrator also understands where

the youth-programs fit in the total package.

The second goal--that of stressing private sector employment outcomes-7

is now being articulated more fOcefully with regard to XEDPA and concrete

steps are 41so taking place to improve performance: 1) a tie between YEDPA

and Title VII 4s being discussed, 2) the favorable experience with a small

vocational exploration program in the Summer will be repeated and expanled when

funds are available, 3) OJT for youth will be tried again despite the failure

of the first deliverer chosen to get very far with it (unless the cut in funds

necessitates dropping this neci. OJT effort for FY 79), and 4) more stress will

be plScedon.looking at placements in judging the performance of progr4m_

components.

Monitoring of deliverers is done carefully Clark County e youth

administrator has a monitor working with him. They look at the administration,

fiscal systems, reporting procedures, and--most important--planned versus actual

performance on the part of subgrantees. On-site visits occur weekly. More

. frequent contact--both in person and on the phone--is used as necessary. When

weaknesses are identified the subgrantee is asked to submit corrective action

steps. The staff reviews those proposals.and negotiates the final steps to be

taken. If corrective action is not carried out by the subgrantee or is not

325
40

succeeding then the advisory council is informed. The council at this paint

reviews the situation and either approves recommended action or makes its own

proposals. If no solution is still forthcoming then the problem is taken to

the elected "officials (thy COuntOlicrd of Commissioners) .

A variety of measures, and judgments are used in baking evaluations of

programs. These evaluations are used for planning purposes, for

instituting further corrective actions if needed, and for making funding

decisions fop subsequent years. Performance (planned. versus actual); placement

rates, costs, and Arapact measures (wage gain, increased skills, quality of

services) are all assessed.

Local Manpower Policy Debates \

Decision-makers in Clark County do not tend to engage in long

phi]ipophical debates about the goals of manpower programs. However, there

are a relatively large number of people who underttand the programs and are in

constant contact with their performance and think of them in terms of whether

they are reaching"the general goals of having an integrated program and ultimately

making good placements in the private sector. These people include the professional

staff, the staff of the experjenced deliverers, and the members of the advisory

council, including the youth subCouncil. e council apparatus is important

in Clark County and has been since the beginning of CETA. Thus when changes , in direction, usually incremental, are planned by the staff they are discussed in

the cowl and consensus almost always emerges rather quickly. This does not

mean, however, that council membeIrs do not know much about the programs or

do not care about them. They care a oonsiderable amount and also know enough

to have a sense for when proposed changes are, in the right direction. Several

years ago, when a number of important council members perceived serious problems

in the program, the council was instrumental in effecting a change in the

directorship. Since then they haveodeveloped considerable confidence in the

director (two 4ifferent individuals) and have followed the lead of the director

P

32G
41.

and his or her staff. However, history suggests that if the council felt

that the program was again going off the track they wouldnot be shy about

intervening., T1 present good relations and general agreement on both ends

and means seems likely to continue, however. Thus "grand debates" over phlicy

are not likely, but this should noUlebtaken to mean that policy considerationsl(*-

are ignored. In Many subtle ways2he staff and the council and, to a lesser

extent, the subgrantees, continually shape incremental changes in policy as they shape-incremental changes in programs.

A major constraint on the decision- making that takes place is that there are a few.well-conndcted and well-entrenches deliverers providing a large part_of..

CETA services in the County. If the staff were to propose massive removal of one, or more of those deliverers a major fight would, no doubt, arise. Fortunately,

the entrenched deliverers are also at least pretty good and the staff has

taken the stance of working with them to improve any weaknesses they see rather

than constantly threatening them with defunding. There have been occasions,

however, when even the entrenched agenies have taken some cuts (hot in =A)

for continued poor perfOrmance. So there is a balance weighted in favor of

existing elivererg, but the system will not tolerate repeated poor performana$

on the part of any deliverer. Thus innovation must proceed slowly in some senses

if new funds are not available; but it can proceed incrementally even within

the confines of existing funds and an occasional infusion of new funds allows even

43 more innovation.

Knowledge Development

The only knowledge development planned for FY 78 was to,test the

proposition Oat the YCCIP program woultincrease the proclivity.of participfttg

not to drop out of school (they ire chosen foi the program on the basis of

being identified as,potential dropouts by schoolcounsellors). Thus far that

activity has not taken place. The staff, however, is planning to interview

A a number of the 34 persons who participated in the program just to get their

111 327
ge -

'42

impressions of the program and whether it had any relation to their decision

AIL to return or not to return to school. (Twenty-two of the 34 returned to school;

the rest did not.) These interviews will not, of course produce "scientific'

proof"'about the effect of the program but it may give some important leads

and insights. _Also, similar kinds of interviews arellanned at the conclusion'

of the 1979 YCCIP program. Thus, by this time next year, the staff should have

some impressions, and information on two very different groups of participants.

In YETI knowledge development has been defined in terms of what is imparted

to the participafts. 0 Formal knowledge development has not been a high priority in Clark County

and, given limited time and resources, probably should not become'a high priority.

But the debriefing of participants approach to be used for YCCIP holds some

,t promise of importdnt learning on the local level that might generate futUre

program adjustments.

COLUMBUS

Self-Evaluatian'

Rhetoric in the plans and at MAC meetings notwithstanding, Columbus is

doing little to monitor and evaluate either its performance in YETP and YCCIP

orthe'impact of those programs. .1/4So much attention has been diverted by basic

0 operational and implementation problems tbat,management concerns like monitoring

A,. and evaluation have been obscured. Although .the,knowledge_dpvelopment sections

of the YETP and YCCIP plans for 78 and 79 speclfy limited<spirations for

. measuring some aspects of program impact, no impact,analysis has been undertaken

as of Novembir, 1978. Even if implementation problems had not dominated attention

so much, it is doubtful that self-evaluation would have emerged, because there'

4.I° tradition in Columbus of rigorous amd candid self evaluation in other

CEPA programs.

There are no staff astOgned as program monitors for YETP and YCCIP (nor

',indeed for any of the CETA programs in Columbui). To theAaxtent that monitoring

3:2s
43

is done, it is handled by the DCS evaldation unit, but therlohas been no monitoring

or q;.,aluatiOn of the YETP and YCCIP programs in FY 78"or 79 to date. Originally,

in the 78 plan, a ptaff position of youth monitoi was to have been added to the

evaluation unit, but the Director decided not to create this position, and it

has not been included in the 79 plans. The existing evaluation staff is

responsible for monitoring not just the other CETA titles and programs but alto

more than 30 other programs in the DCS. Needless to say, it was understaffed

and unable to conduct regular monitoring reviews of YETP and YCCIP. Although

the evaluation unit staff recognize, at an intellectual level, the differences

of monitoring, evaluation, and knowledge development, at the operational level

none of the distinctions mattered because none of them were done.

Local Manpower Policy Debatdg

As the preceding sections should abundantly clear, Columbus' youth program

has been plagued with operational problems; staff attention has been fixed on

immediate problems and coping to survive. There has not been time to question

the policy implications of the YETP and YCCIP programs. There certainly has

been no request from the Director for rethinking the local manpower and youth

policies. And the 79 planning process for -youth;sin3ply reaffirmed unquestioningly

the previous year's programs without debating policy.

The manpower policy for youth in Columbus is h no means easy to understand,

despite sections in the plans and annual repots. The basic goal of YETP and

YCCIP is to prepare youth for entry level positions in the local labor force, , rily by exposure to a world of.work orientation (C.O.T.P.). This is a

simple enough policy, but it is not supplemented with enough work experience jobs,

OJT, and placement servc(es to make the goals realistically achieveable. The

youth programs, especially the YESC, seem to be operating in isolation from the

other parts of the CETA;prbgram. There is very little tie between the youth

A v progr4A ind- the otherVairtaas, noris tie integration of youth manpower policy

Into the overall CETA manpower policy evident, primarily because the latter is

itself vague and misunderstood.

4

'-\ 32D
11

44

If one were tt, rank Columbus on a spectrum of operational concerns vs.

policy concerns, the Columbus CETA program falls far on the 9d of operational

.concerns. Columbus has been stuck on operational concerns kor almost.a year- -

it has been operational concerns; not policy debates that have delayed the

implementation of its YETP program. Genuine debates on any manpower policy,

including YEDPA, are very rare in Columbus.

Knowledge Development

knowledge development aims of the Columbus youth programs, as contained

in the YETP and YCCIP plans for FY 78 and 79, were reasonably simple and unassuming.

The goals were to 1) identify factors in the backgrounds of youth that

contributed to the youth's unemployment problems, and 2) to assess the impacts

1

of different CETA ,i(inth programs (or "treatments ") on youth employability after

leaving the prograne. Nothing -has as yet been done to address these knowledge

development goals.

A special background form. was- to be used at intake to collect more

information than intake staff would usually get from applicants, but to date

these forMshave not been analyzed. One minor step towards this goal has been

an analysis by the evaluation unit of the BOLT test scores of YESC applicants

through September. The results were compiled in time for inclusion in the annual

.report, but it is unclear whether more will be done with the results.

Since so few participants have terminated from YETP and YCCIP the evaluation

unit has not attempted todo anything with respect to the impact analysis.

It is not known when more attention will be given to analysis of either of the

knowledge development goals.

The reasons for lack of att ration to knowledge development are easy to

identify: failure to implement much of the programs until late in FY 78,

understaffing,in the evaluation unit, the lack of leadership froni the Director

o 2 making evaluation and knoWledge development a priority. The knowledge development

mandate has always been viewed in ,Columbus as something extra, separate and done

u
45 . only because the regulations required it. It has not been integrated into

planning or operations.

7 GREENE COUNTY

The battery of interview schedules and data Greene County administers and

collectdduring ;;;!ital evaluation constitutes a significant "free will" effort

to assess performance and impact beyond required DOL record keeping.

%cruse of time constraints and the turnover in youth staff in Greene County

over the last year (a new full time youth coordinator with some social services'

background but no formal CETA experience was employed) periodic monitoring

beyond simple desk monitoring (checking.records) was not conducted during the

first year of the program. However,ostaff and the youth council have decided

that monitoring on site will bt an important activity in FY 79, and the new

Title III narratives include plans to.conduct tbree on.rsite monitoring actions over

the course of the next program year with one formal evaluation as a final stocktaking effort toward the end of the year.

Evaluation in Greene County sought to achieve two main objectives this

year. First it attempted to assess performance of the whole Outh services

networkthe agency as well as the subcontractors--and,sas important, it was

to function as in-service training for the new youth coordinator. The thinking

of senior staff, was that this new .coordinator could assimilate much more

about CETA and local impleientation by becoming immersed in thd design and

implementation of the local evaluation with the'aid of senior staff.- This

4

exercise, plus writing upthe annual plans for the mith programs, was, therefore,

` intended to orient and train the new coordinator in as efficient a way as possible.

The strategy seems tb have worked.

'I

0. Greene County.has demonstrated both explicitly in'the annual plan as well

as implicitly in their program operations and administration that they have a

set of goals and objectives, hat con titute an employment and training pol_cy \4

rather than just a mere concern for operational maters and questions of who
46

gets what contract. This policy is composed of seven broad goals or objectives

that guide and focus local efforteand organize their formal plans. The

broadest goals include a) operating programs that combine work experience, training, case management, and support services for low income youth who otherwise

would not be self-supporting in the forseeable future.;.- b) giving high priority

to those youth with multiple disadvantages (thus the major focus of the youth

programs is directed toward low income youth Who are out-of-school nongraduates

needing skills training, or'potential dropouts, minority youth, offenders

and/or physically or mentally handicapped); c) coordipating currently existing

setvices for Greene County youth (Greene County, hopes to continue to forge

links with the schaols, community agencies and labor organizations which they

commenced in earnest last year).

Butressing these broad overarching goals is a set of "institutional change

goals." Among these staff number d) restructuring and-reclassifying jobs

ware5

(this objective will require additional interaction with labor organizations

over the coming year); e) increasing private sector involvement. Greene plans,

in connection with this fifth goal, to explore various way's to improve OJT- . _ services to all CETA youth participants (I and III) thiough a "youth jab

development" position within the existing framework with OBES. Two other

avenues will also be explored toward this end: CETA will seek to forge a new

link with the Xenia Chamber of Commerce, which has just expressed an interest

in becoming active in youth programs, and'Gregne plans to explore the possibilities

for collaborative efforts under YEDPA with "Work-education councils" as

4escribed in Region V ETA Technical Assistance Letter 96 to increase private

sector invol4ement in Greene County.

.J Greene has also-stated the go-al-(f) of improving career decision making

through three techniques: increasing the attention to assessment and testing

.of-Terticipants; increasing conta* between,participante'counselors and case

managers; and 4ideveloping workshops for participants.

3 ti
47

Their final, emphasis (g) will be to integrate and coordinate services in

Greene County so there is*a'"natural progression" Participants may follow or a

0 . "career training and goals ladder," the first wrung of which is services (work

experience) provided under YCCIP and SPEDY, followed by the in termpdiate step,

' YETP, and-culminating inlTitle I 65T.

carpenters' 'ion in FY 78 by insisting that any youth OJT must be structured in

This emerging employment and training policy for youth in Greene CotPity

i

hapresulted from i e interaction of.a wide range of actors_51d-interests

throughout the firs ,year of the program. Title I and III staff work very

clOsely together. The youth council and the MAC must agree on broad directions

and the thrust of policy decisions before they go to the commissioners. Youth

council meetings are scheduled regularly; they meet at least once per month.

All decisions are aired before the council; the council considers staff

recommendations and makes indepenVnt contributions themselves. Staff work

4 very hard to get the assistance of other significant actors- -the unions, the

public and private colleges in the area, the executives at the local high

schools--to understand their program and to contribute ideas as well as

A resources. The single agency that seems least cooperative has been OBES. That

organization scuttled a fledgling pre-apprenticeship program with the local

such a ..wer that participants .be in school and be limited to 20 hours work

per reek. The ap prenticeship program required full ti e workers. and OBES would

not hear of it. That misunderstanding has yet to be completely resolved.

Its general, Greene County seeks 'to involve a very wide circle of actors

and interests in youth programs, and the council is itself representative of

this milt., All major issues of policy are deliberated. before the council, and

the council votes to accept or reject staff recommendations. Furthermore, while

staff conduct evaluation primeedings, four-Ynuth council members accompanied

the staff as observer:

Finally, staff and outh Council recommendations must be approved by the

general advisory council before the elected' officials are asked to approve pans,

4.
48

programs or policy changes. Thus decisions tend teibe well discussed and

debated prior to final formal dispositiOn..

VII. SPEDY, 19710

CLARK COUNTY

o

SPEDY in Clark County has been and continues tb be viewed lost exclusively

as short-term-Work experience. However, the staff has also felt free to add

small experimental components. In 1977 this involved retarded youth. In. 1978 a small vocational exploration program was developed that was well regarded

and is expected to serve as a model for future efforts to link youth participants

to private sector opportunities. Four deliverers pr9vided slots. Three of

these deliverers are also involved in YEDPA and the fourth would like to be

involved. They were experienced from previous SPEDY,programs.

Most of the grant was spent ($456,000 was expended and about $22,000 will

a - be carried over to summer, 1979). The program was underenrolled--497 were

served instead of the planned 617. The major explanation for this is that

eligible youth simply did not apply in large enough numbers. But the staff was

pleased because the 497 figure represented the.largest SPEDY program ever

mounted in the county. The program was planned to serve about 50% black youth

and performed almost precisely at that level of service to blacks. The program

was planned to'aerve about 32% females but, in fact, served 38% females.

Formal integration between SPEDY and miT was minimal. The prime

sponsorship had proposed' much closer integration with inter-title transfers.

But the federal representative from the Chicago regional office said that that

could not be done '(surely a curious interpretation of the DOL's general

pro-integration stance). A change of status notice served to provide some

administrative integration. And the fact that Clark County has a central intake

unit provided counselors an early decision point to determine whether an

3 31
49

individual should go to SPEDY or to one ofilthe YETP slots maintained through

the summer. Some YETP work sites bepame SPEDY work sites, which was another

form of informal integration.

Despite formal criteria'fOr site }selection that are the same for SPEDY

and YETP, staff felt that the,smaller size of the YETP program plus its

year-round chatacter resulted in higher quality work sites in,the YETP progfam.

'COLUMBUS

The bulk of the $2.3 milldon SPEDY program was similar to past summer

6 Programs. It is run by prime sponsor operations staff, like Title I youth

programs and YETP. The majority of the more than 4000 participants were

enrolled at one of the five neighborhood youth in e centers and assigned to

jobs at one of more than 400 traditional SPEDY orksite agencies in city

government and priyate nonprofit agenties. In selecting,worksites, heavy

emphasis is placed on the worksite's previous exp ence in SPEDY. Most of

the SPEDY jobs for yolith are in service functions. All have "aide" type

titles. The greatest number of pgrticipants are assigned to the Columbus

Public Schools for summer janitorial help ank4to the city Parks and Recreation

Depa'rtment.

The 1978 SPEDY program was marked by several new features. There was a

Vocational Exploration, Program for 120 youth operated by NAB -ERDI under a

SM. separate grant from DOL. SPEDY intake referred youth for thib program. (The

VEP program had also been operated the previous summer.) A second new feature

of SPEDY was a vocational exploration program operated, by the. Columbus Public

Schdols-for about 3,50 youth., Participants rotated among theifour CPS Caieer

Centers being exposed to four tyo week modules of 20 occupations. Transportatiod

to the Centers was provided, and academic credit was supposed'to be arranged

j,(although it was not, according to the quarterly report for the SPEDY program).-*

The third new feature of SPEDY was the creation of a special project, a cultural,

335
4

50

band, composed of recruits from high school music Classes who held concerts

9

around the city during the summer.

Overall the SPEDY performance was good, especially when contrasted with

114

the partially functioning YETP program. All aspects of the plan were implemented

(the traditional work experience sites,.the CPS vocational exploration, the

HRDI VEP, and the band). There were no special problems in administration,

enrollment, or check issuance. (There was to have'been aofulltime SPEDY

/ - coordinator hired as a permanent staff position, but this person did not come on

board until July. Meanwhile the youth coordinator responsible for YETP had to

oversee SPEDY startup as'well.) Presumably the operations staff was drawing

on previous years of experience with SPEDY and this helped the solicitation

-of worksites, recruitment of youth, and hiring' to go smoothly.

Orientation sessions were held for supervisors as well as youth. The

CPS vocational exploration program at the career centers was especially

successful in the eyes of the staff. This marked' the first time that the CPS

had had any direct involveient as a service provider for the Columbus CETA

program. (Interestingly, the CPS had proposed to do a simile= vocational

exploration program for YETP, but this proposal had been rejected early in the

FY 78 IETP planning process.) Their involvement-in SPEDY perhaps represents

an opening wedge for further involvement in CETA programs in the future.

Commendably, the youth operations staff have for.several summers conducted

exit interviews with all participants who drop out of the program during. the

summer and sample of di6)3e who successfully complete it. These participant

, . /

t interviews have notheen used in other CETA programs, including YETI'. The results

have been used, according to the staff, to make changes, in 'Subsequent SPEDY

programs. However, no specific data on the surveys were available for review,

nor were specific instances of changes made because of survey results identified.'

Although the rhetoric of the SPEDY plan suggests that one of SPEDY'S goals

is to epare youth to enter unsubsidized employment, in fact no placements at

3 3 c
51

all were reported (even the PPS did not'show any planned. placements, Although

the narrative had). The youth operations staff and planneri indicake,tatat

AIY , . SPEDY 4: intended to be income maintenance and that hopefully good work attitudes

will be learned by participants. They feel eight weeks is too short a period

of time to teach vocational skills to develop jobs where skills can be learned

a , that will be valuable later in life.

_JO

There is no special difference in the type of work experience jobs and' the

type of work4tes that charaCterize SPEDY and YETP, YCCIP, and Title I youth

programs. All worksitea-are in city government or private nonprofit agencies.

All participants earn the minimum wage. All job titles are "aides" of one sort

or another-- day care aide, recreation aide, conservation aide, clerical aides,

etc. -Dial); in YCCIP is the nature of the Jobs different due to is on

home repair and weatherizatiod that,requires conbtructions skills. Also,'maoy

. 4..s, 1 - 4 of the YCCIP jobs g' elulltimei whereas nine of-the other jobs are.

I

, -.6, .?

No linkages were planned or occurred between SPEDY and other youth programs.

-;.,!. SfEDY: has always been treated asaid insular, one shOt program for youth-in the

Co --,. , summer. This year's SPEDY'program was marked,by-more attention to providing

. ,_.

. . exploratory vocational edutation experiencots to the participants and also to'

0 , " ,4 '. . , . . providing labor market information (because this,wr43 requireor the law). LabOr

market Information, was transmitted as part of the Para rientation

sessions. It cove eiLtopics very similar to the YETP C d of work

I

introductAon, but in more coldensed form._ (Thus the rogram is in some

ways very similar to the SPEDY program, except that EDYienphasizes more

experience while YETP emphasizes more orientation and vocational training for

some of the participants.)

/ The same youth intake centers used for Title I intake ( Lcr YETP until

the YESC was operating in June) were also used for SPEDY intake; this might be

. a linkage. At the end of the SPEDY program eligible 'NS youth were

to be referred 4 other CETA programs, primarily to YESC for possible provision

. of additional-services.

331

a
42

Staff indicated that the ordinary participant flow .s for Title finT-school

youth to go to SPEDY in the summer, and then back to Title 1 in- school. There

are variations on this pattern (no quantitative ,figures are available on the

extent of these variations.) Many SPEDY participants are recruited who are not

part of other CETA programs(e.g., dropouts). This year, due to the late

of^YESC, SPEDY did lure actual and. potential YETP participants because

SPEDY was functioning andipaying people whereas YESC was not. And there was

some movement of participants out c ,SPEDY at the end of the summer into YETP

or YCCIP. Youth participants-earn the minimum wage in all programs and the

nature of the jobs do not vary significantly (except for YCCIP, as noted above).

GREENE COUNTY

As in prior summer6 Greene County exceeded its.enroliemnt goals. Their

plan called for enrolling 100 disadvantaged youth, no more than-Mort board at

a tile. But CAC indicated they had employed 150 to 160 youth in SPEDY. Greene

was less successful in*meeting two other goals however. They sought to

provide quality work experience to all participants, and the formal evaluation

indicated that some of the sites and slots did not meet expectations. In

general, YETP jobs were highe; quality than SPEDY, partly because of restrictions

imposed on the nature of work the youth under 16 could perform. Also the quality

of supervision and skill training was better in YETP than in SPED?. Staff said

the poorest slots in SPEDY were ones they secured with the City an road crews,

and they suggested this numbered about 14 slot's.

Plans for quality job slots under SPEDY may have been slightly unrealistic

for two reasons: many jabs i government hre unimaginative in the first place,

and parttime ones for inexperienned youthwho are forbidden to operate power

machinery are likely to be as dull or worse than the least attractive full time

positions. Second, communities that are predominately rural can only create

a limited number of part time jobs for youth; when the supply is very limited

3` 0
414

in a community that heretofore has not made tremeridoua

53

forts for youth cervices,

no amount of incentive can extra t sloes in large numbers that Ar-e- attractive

to youth who have very little 'to offer in.terms of experience or skills.

Nevertheless, that Greene sought to keep the quality of these jobs as high as

possible is commendable. Furthermore, they plan to eliminate those site

sponsors that provided the poorest slots from the roster in the coming year.

SPED? was administratively joined with YETP and YCCIP in several ways. The

'full time CEDA youth coordinator to administer YETP and YCCIP also coordinated

and administered SPEDY. Intake for SPEDY was coordinated through the YETP

intake component. This practice allows intake to refer SPEDY youth to

placement services,, OTT training, and other services proyi401 by YETP and YCCIP.

Other administrative links exist- A new full time secretary was hired with

SPEDY money, but she will serve also as secretary-dlerk assistant for YETP/YCCIP.

With SPEDY's implementation two new counseldrs were added to the two serving

under YETP. With this addition all youth participants were split up among the

four individuals making up the expanded co.tnselling corps.

% / .. Furthermore, alnervices provided to YETP youth have been extended to

SPEDY youth for the summer even though these services are few. Finally,

. CAC--the only viable and interested CEO in G ne County--administers both

programs. This facilitates integration. The CAC director pointed out, however,

that when we talk about integration, we should know that the link between SPEDY

and YETP is fairly complete;\while there is little if any interplay with YCCIP.

SPEDY's implementation this summer did allow Greene County officials to

ease the pressure YETP somewhat. That is, SPEDY picked up some of the YETP

participan ts, which freed a number of YETP slots.

The CAC director summarized the tandem operation of SPEDY and YETP by

-saying the two were indistinguishable during the summer for many purposes.

e,

:43
54

VIII. EMERGING LOCAL ISSUES

1. The existence of a separate bummer program continues to be a problem

for both rational planning. and rational operations. SPEDY gives prime sponsors

4

a sizeable amount of money that lias to be spent on shortnotice,ti a short

period of time. Recruitment problems, site-selection problems, and administrative

problems abound. All three prime sponsorships examined in this report have been

le engaged in the SPEDY game long eno to cope reasonably well. But -- except

, . perbspi for the vanity of the congressional sponsors of SPEDYthere-seems

to be little reason to 444 SPEDY separate. "Year round" youth programs ought

to be just that, DOL is obviously constrained by statutes in terms of any

inroads it can make into the problem of fostering integration but some steps,

could probably be taken by regulations., At minimum, field representatives across

the nation could be given consistent guidance on permissible integrating

activities. Greene and Clark received quite different instructions on this

point from two different field representatives both coming from the'same

regional office and presumably subject to the same supervis

2. The above incident involving regional office representatives raises a

broader issue: the seeming inability of the regional offices to make much,

consistent positive input into lodal YEDPA operations (or any CETA operations,

for that mattbr). Not only do federal representatives offer conflicting advice

2 or rulings but, in cases of problems, they usually offer no help and= needed

criticism. Thus the .picture emerges ----at least in these three prime sponsorships- -

of federal representatives who focus on the wrong'questions. They hasqle prime

sponsors on petty matters but let major:questions and', in the case of Columbus,

major problems go without attention or comment. Surely DOL needs to address

this problem broadly even though, uneretandably, they shrink from a task that

might ipvolveconsiderable bureaucratic disruption in ETA. That the Office of

Field Operations has now been moved directly under tjeouw Deputy' Assistant
55

Secretary for. Employment and Training seemwto create'a logical opportunity

for assessing field operations from scratch, both for YEDPA and for all CETA

programs.

3. More search is needed to uncover hdditionak levers to promote cooperation

between the employment and training system in a locality and the local public

schools. The mandated 222 money only raises the issues but does not solve them.

-This is obt:TiousFs<Try large issue'and additional research on it is

already under way. Congres apparently continues to think that money is tne

answer -- witness the new 12 fu d given to governors for purposes of fostering

cooperation: But the'experience in these three prime sponsorships suggests that

the issues go well beyond money and that, lit fact, until the infrastructure for

rudimentalv cooperation is present, money is virtually beside the point.

4. Accordion-like funding patterns--both for YEDPA and for other

programs -- continue to threaten qi er for programs. Within the, confines of

what Congress provides, DOL needs to continue to work on` the problem of how to use ,

discretionary money, how to space resources to give SOME continuity, and how to

bite the reallocation bullet meaningfully and in a timely'fashion. 'Ironically,'

the experience in the three Ohio prime sponsorships suggests that the two

more successful prim prime sponsors will be penalized in FY 79 for their

success becauge of cuts they must now make and that the least successful of the

three will suffer lo penalties at all but, in fact, will go into it 79 with

moif money than they, can probably spend well (or perhaps more than they can

spend at all) .'

5. The S cretary of bor must report to Congress in early 1980 on

proposals for integrating Title II A, B, C (old Title I), Title VII (Pfivate

Sectors Initiative Program), and Title IV A (YEDPA). Creative pioposals, backed

by research, should be a high piiority. Both Clark-and Greene are already

thinking about such integratioNnd m.lepenting some aspects of it. DOL could

341

to

N7.
56

learn from .ocal experience in this area and Should setup Mechanismsfor capturing this experience systematically.

,..

z a 342
ADDENDUM

INTRODUCTION

When the text of the Third Interim Rep rt was written and typed, data

for three sections were not available from Qreene County. Those data are

now available and thit'addendum:summarizes and comtpnis on them.

, Section (TARGETING) should be inserted on. page 7 of the report.

Sec" II (PROGRAM MIX) should be inserted on page 10 of the report. .Section

C.

III (PLANNED AND ACTUAL PERFORMANCE) should be inserted on pate 22 of the report.

Tables are numbered 13 through 18 so as not to be confused with those appehring

in the report. (Note that Greene may amend their figures again (some do not

add properly), but we report the data they had on 11/20/78 for 9/30/78.)

I. TARGETING

GREENE COUNTY

Client Characteristics

Table 13, a summary of YETP and YCCIP participant characteristics through

September 30, 1978, indicates that Greene County is doing particularly well in enrolling females,within YETP mid blacks in YETP and YCCIP, given the rural

character of the prime sponsor hip and thelack of large cties. Greene did less

well reaching the drop outs with YETP, however, because they had difficulty

locating and recruiting them; they had'trouble informing them of the oppoitunities.

t Recruitment for YETP and YCCIP was done mainly through the which tilted

services to in-school youth. Finally, low enrollment of dropouts was also

related to insufficient staff monitoring of MIS participant characteristic

data relative to target goals.

V

'10 YCCIP was. exclusively male in FY 78 because of the nature of the work experience

offered: winterization projects, small repair for the elderly, and gardening

projects, also for the elderly. While females wer not attracted to YCCIP, Greene

did attract a large.per cent of blacks and Youth /from welfare families for the

program.

343
J

2

Table 13: Client Characteristics, YETP"

.' and YCCIP, Greene County, 9/30/78

..

r -

r YETP- YCCIP

0 Z 4'

r- z Male .

- 41 45 13 100

Female ' 51 55 0 0

less than 18 - 42 46 5- 38 r High schdol student 48 52 3 23

High school dropout 13 14 ° 8' 62

Elgin school graduate 24 26 2 15

(completor & post HS)

AFDC'

t 39 42 / 54

Economically Disadvantaged 92 100 13 100

- 85Z BLS 89 97 13 . 100

Family Head 33 36 3 23

Family Member

.

.

,

. 53 58 10 77

Unrelated Individual 6 7 ., 9 0

White 61 66 7 54

Black & other nonwhite 31 34 6 46

' Spanish American 0 0 0 0

Veteran

1 1 0 0

Handicapped t 0 0 0 0

Offender 3

. 3

1 8

Underemployed 3 3 0 0

Unemployed . , 33 36 6 . 46

-Other - . 56 61 7 54

,

.

. - Total Number Enrolled 92 100 13 . 100

-......

3
3

Significant Segments

Greene County emphasized six significant segments under YETP. Because

targeting of this nature was not.required for YCCIP, no comparable data was kept

or reperted on those participants. They significantly overachieved among

"poverty youth" and the "in-school clientele" while falling considerably

below expectations with ex-offenders, in-school special education clients,

and, tore generally, the dropout group. The central role played by the

schools in recruitment accounts for the in=school bias; and the large, sprawling

rural nature of the prime sponsorship made reaching dropouts and youth

offenders difficult since they had no effectiv infrastructure for disseminating

information to these nonmainstream youth.

, II.. PROGRAM

GREENE COUNTY

Tables 14 and 15 contain enrollment and expenditure data. Most of

Greene's enrollments and expenditures for YETP were in Career Experielce and

Work Experience; all YCCIP was Work Experience. Greene's experience with the

private sector under Title I bad shown a reluctance on the part of employers

to accept unskilled or the hardcore unemployables in OJT slots, hence the

4

emphasis on work experience. Moreover, staff philosophy emphasizes the'.

assumption that most of these youth need to learn basic work behaviors, skills,

and personal responsibility as a prelude to any OJT position. Therefore,

Greene County youth staff have focused their efforts mpon developing a

wide range of CEE and WE worksites, which provide numerous skill and occupational

,training choices. Staff also make am effort to reassign youth to different work

'experience if they are dissatisfied with the first placement.

Greene believes in a "Career Training Ladder" concept of progressive client

development. The firbt rung of this ladder is CEE and WE. Thus YETP, YCCIP,

and SPEDY are vehicles for initial orientation and the most elementary exposure

3'1
Table 14: Enrollments as of 9/30/78 by Program Activity,

Greene County, YETP & YCCIP,

;

. Total Enrollment as of 9/30/78: YETP 4. 92 YCCIP a. 13

. Career Employment

Experience

.=."......._ Transition

. Services OJT . Classroom

b. Training

. Work

Experience

,

. t

. 1 4 1 YETP

.

' 44 48 0 ' *

.0

,

,

7

. 8

. 0 0 28

.

.

30

.

.

.

YCCIP

.

1 8

.

'

. 0

.0 0

.

0

. .

.

f 0

,

0

. 12 92

-

'c\\:.,(

34G

a 34
I

Table 15:xpenditures as of 9/30/78 by Program Component,

Greene County, YETP & YCCIP

,

- Total Expenditures as of 9430/78: YETP 1. $134,226; YETP .. $21,468

Career Employment

. Experience,

Transition

Services

Classroom

Training OJT

0 Work

Experience

Services to

,Participants ' Othel

$ % $ Z $ 'Z $ % $ Z $ Z

7 $ Z

A YETP

. . 41,809

..

o 31 0 0 0 0 691 1 83,619 62 0 0

4

8,107

.. 6

YCCIP

4

0

'

1

0

.

.

0

,

.

0

'N

0 0. 21,468 100

. 0 0 0 0

An.

343 349
.11

.to the world of work. Only after the initiation can participants. move on to

OJT or PSE or more comprehensive Title I training. To this end, then, Greene

plans to enrich and imprpve the WE and 1EE activities in YETP and YCCIP by

strengthening assessment, and testing of youth clients, offerios OJT as a goal

to achieve followin EE andWE, identifying potantially successful OJT

candidates for selected referral and improving counseling and supervision at

all werksites.to improVe the quality of WE.

The youth programs, of course, encourage and emphasize WE, but the range

of choice - -WE, Title I training, OJT, and-some PSE-- may vary based upon

counselor recommendation's, individual needs and the availability of other

programs in the prime sponsorship at_a given time.

III. PLANNED AND ACTUAL PERFORMANCE

F GREENE COUNTY

Summaries 'of FY 78 planned and actual performance measured in both

enrollment and expenditure terms appear in Tables 16 and 17. Greene County had

no trouble reaching and exceeding thlitotal planned enrollment' levels for

____/

either YETP or YCCIP. This was so for a number of reasons. CAC, the major

service deliverer for both programs, is especially welt connected the community.

But perhaps as important, Greene exceeded enrollment plans beca e they have a.

`very large needy clientele and a dearth of services and agencies in the county

that serve youth. And they exceeded their enrollment plans for both YETP,

and YCCIP in all program categories except classr training in YETP. While . Greene overachieved in OJT during FY 78, they planned, even before most

recent budget cuts, to refocus OJT for out-of-school youth and-at a reduced

level for FY 79 because the FY 78 experience convinced them that at least under

their circumstances OJT was inappropriate for most of their eligible youth

clients. Implementing this decisioh aRechange of'emphasis in '79 will depend,
Table 16.:Planned and Actual Enrollments, YETP and YCCIP

as of 9/30/78, 'Greene County

Total 0

Enrolled

Career Employment

Experience

Transition

Services OJT

Classroom

Training'

Work

Expetience

YETP

86

92

107

"

8

44

550

0'

0--

5

. 7 140

t

. 220

0

20

fl

28

140

Plan (0)

Actuall)

% of Plan Achieved

YCCIP a 13

l6q

. 0

0

_..2

.

0

0

. --

.

0

0

. --

.

0

0--

%

13

12

92.

-.. Plan (0)

Actual:- (0) z-q.,-_\13

% of Plan Achieved

351

4 "

352
Table 17: Planned and Actual Evenditures, YETPtYCCIP

/ as of 9/30/78, Greene County

.. .

/

Total

Expenditures

Career

Employment

Service

Transition

Services

.." Classroom

Training

. OJT)

Work

Experience

Services to

Participants Other

YETP

163,877

134,226

82

36,307

41,809

i i

115

0

0--

, 0

0--

21,582

691

3

66,793

83,619

125

. '4" 30,913

0

0

.

, 8,242

8,107

98

8

Plan ($) ' Actual (5)

% of Plan

Achieved

..

... YCCIP

33,116

21,468

65

. 0

0__

0

0--

.., 0 . 0

. .....

0

0

--

.

s. 33,116

, 21,468

65

4

,

.

0

0__

r0

0

... ..

.

Plan '($)

Actual ($)

%.of Plan

Achieved

,

5' 35

N

f _4

'454

CO
9

on a willingness of ES,to go after out of school Outh--a commitment ES ha-

, yet to demonstrate to the prime sponsor. . Expenditure data indicate that total expenditures 'edged behind plans,

but with the exception of OJT expenditures, actual expenditures for YETP

Were only slightly above or below plans. For YCCIP,.Greene data indicate,*

substantial lag between planned and actual expenditures. This outcome

'appears to have resulted from some unanticipated events that had the ekPect

of Placing all YCCIP activity under theAurisdiction of CAC, *educing costs

nd duplication of effort that would have occurred had other subcontractors

followed through on'their commitment. (Five slots were allocated to Yelleti

Springs H.S. but went to CAC when Yellow Springs dropped out.)

The only category that indicates failure to come close to plans is

"service to pafticipants" in YETP. This probably occuired,asa result or hasty

planning, late implementation, and the unexpdcted cost-free services Greene

received, from community groups --tile juvenile court (counseling); Fairborn t

YMCA (counseling); and Central State University (tutoring).;

Table 18 summarizes planned and actual termination data by category for

FY 78. These data suggest-Chat a modest indirect placement goal of'18 (YETP)

,*and 3 (YCCIP) was hard to meet in both praltrams. Non-positive terminations

were considerably below expectations in YETP while they correspond to plans

for YCCIP. The three non - positives in YCCIP/were expected, CAC staff told us,

because these youth have been onee who had resisted all earlier attempts to

"reach them" pre-YEDPA. In facty-CAC staff related anecdotes of several

community citizens who decided they no longer wanted'thNee services YC6I;, would

provide when they discovered which youth would be coming to their homes. CAC

041 staff and Greene County taff agreed with the general assessment that YCCIP'yoUth

were programmed tofail and that the good coming from the program would never

show up in termination data. And the lackluster performance suggested by the

terminations data is one reason why Greene County decided to conduct intervis

I 4°64" lj
' PO,

Table 10: Planned and Actual Termination Date, YETP &

as of 9/30/78, GreeneCounty

,

. , . Total #

Enrolled

. TotalTerming ions

Entered

Employmdnt

.. Indirect

Placements

Other

'Positive'"--

Terminations

1........ Non-Positive

Termination's,

YETP

86

92

107

',

,

. 54

20

37

''-',

.

22

9.- 41

.

0

.

c

IB

,0

0

,

15

2

. 1-

, .. 17,

9

53

/

Plan (#)

Actual (#)

Z of Plan

Achieved

=IP

13

13

. 1004, .

,* - 13

6'

46,

.

...

.

0

. 0

..1.

3

0

,p0-'

- 4

c3

75

.

. 3

4 3

100

.

Plan (W

Actual (#)

X of Plan.

Achieved

,

356

4

35',/
11

with participants concerning their experiences under the programs. (Those

, data are not available yet.) These data plus anecdotal records would, therefore,

constitute some recprd of accomplishment/ achievement/ impact that would not

show up on gross measures of performance mandated by DOL.

Greene reacted to the DOL mandate to hold cumulative spending to 73% of

their FY 78 allocation as test they could given a rapidly changing DOL position.

Staff said they had been admonished to "spend all your FY 78 money," then shOrtlyi.

thereafter they were instructed to carryover 27% of the FY 78 allocation.

Their first reaction was to transfer YETP to SPEDY, which gave them a 14%

carryover, but the, impact on FY 79 plans was to cut YETP slot levels from 80 to 41

in the coming year because YETP funds now totaled $178,540, and that had to be

/-

spread over 12 months; an increased minimui wage also-reduced the buying power

of these new moneys. Staff explained their plans further at a youth council

meeting where initial reaction translated into 32% of FY 79 YETP had to go

to in- school youth; 18 slots would be allocated to work experience,'with 5 fulltime OJT slots.

The new mandate left only a small amount for YCCI' in FY 79. With this

staff expected to gear the program down to one small 15 week program with one

PSE supervisor for fewer youth.

. +Gre recently, Greene's Title VI allocation was cut from $2.5 million to

p $600,000 and the YETP allocation-was reduced an additional $70,000, which made'

N these earlier FY 79 plans inoperative. Staff are still busy at this time trying

to alvage a youth program from these most recent cuts, and the final

4 sposition of these difficulties has not yet emerged../ 17

a

A

3

M

vim) 4
A Project (Nov. 22, 1978)

41.

To: Greg Wurzburg

From: Randall Ripley fps

MEMORANDUM

Novemberr27, 1978

Subject: Modification of Addendum to Third Interim Report: Youth Evaluation

After we had completed the addendum on Greene County we checked with

staff members there on some data that did not seem accurate and found that,

in fact, they had made some revisions in the data on which we based the

addendum (even though those data were not ready until November 16 to begin

with). This memo should be read in connection with that addendum as it offers

a more accurate picture of the enrollment situation in Greene County as of

Septe er 30, 1978. ,The following memo contains new versions of Tables 14 and

16 in the addendum and commentary on the meaning of the new data.

The Greene County data revisions represent a response to budget cuts

Greene had not planned, principally the DOL order to hold spending to 73% of

the FY 78 allocation, which forced the prime sponsorship to terminate a large

number of YETP youth and transfer eligibles to SPEDY to free funds for the

carryover. The new data are summarized in new tabl#s 14a and 16a. The reader

will note that while enrollments remain-at 92 for YETP and 13 for YCCIP, the

absolute size of enrollments by program category has shrunk. The differences

between data reported in Tables 14 an 16 and new Tables 14a and 16a is accounted

for under a new category "Terminations." able 14a indicates 67 terminations as

of 9/30/78. Of these 9 entered employment; 1 was a direct placement; 8 obtained

employment; 27 were tranagers from to SPEDY, and 31 were nonpositive

terminations. Terminations account or 73 percent of YETP program activity.

The residual is spread among CEE, T, and Work Experience. Note, that CEE and
Table 14a: Enrollments as of 9/30/78 by Program Activity,

Greene County, YETP & YCCIP

Total Enrollment as of 9/30/78: YETP = 92 -YCCIP = 13

Career Employment

Experience

Transition

Services.

. OJT

Classroom

Training

' Work

Experience

Terrain -- 'ations

IP %

, # % . # % # % '> % ir

, YETP 11

--., 12 0

. 0 5 5

. 0 0 9 10 67 73,

YCCIP

.

i 1 8

. 0

,. -- 0 0

. 0 0 0 12

,

.

. 92 0

_...,.

0

.

3 I' '
Table 16a: Planned and Actual Enrollments, YETP and YCCIP

as of 9/30/78, Greene County

Total 0

Enrolled

Ca eer Employment

Experience

Transition

Services OJT

Classroom

Training

Work

Experience

Terminations

YETP

Plan (0) 86 8 0 5 22 20 54

Actual (0) 92 11 0 5 0 9 t7

% of Plan Achieved 107 137 -- 100 0 45 124

. YCCIP

Plan (0) 13 0 0 0 0 13t 0

Actual (0) 13 1 0 0 0 12 0

% ot,Plan Achieved 100 -- -- --. -- 92 --

0'

S2

40

383,
:4)

4

Work Experience still account for most of YETP program activity.. YCCIP

is unaffected by these, revisions.

Inspection of table 16a contrasting planned and actual enrollments conveys

similar changes in the levels of achievement when terminations are broken out

and isolated from earlier summaries in Table 16. Greene still exceeds plans

for CEE but at a much reduced rate. On the other hand the prime sponsor fails

rather dramatically with regard to planned enrollment levels under Work

Experience when the original 28 actual clients is reduced to 9 in the revised

figures.

These revisions represent a post hoc summary of program activity that

cannot be fully interpreted without juxtaposing the original tables alongside

the respective updates. Terminations shrink earlier indicators of program

performance, and these terminations, at least the 27 transfers to SPEDY can

be interpreted as a bookkeeping devise to respond to a untimely carryover

Order.

It should also be noted that Greene County's plans for FY 79 were seriously

affected by cuts in Title III monies)the initial effect of which was an equally

serious and unanticipated reduction in Title VI money for FY 79 which _reduced

their budget from 2.5 millions to $600,000. That reduction also had its

effect on Greene's ybuth program because earlier plans had called for using

some Title VI money to play for youth staff salaries. The prime sponsor has

just received notice that it will receive over $800,000 in-PSE discretionary

money. Thus Greene County may have enough flexibility to implement their

earlier plans to%ay some 'youth staff salaries with these funds. To date,

however, final plans are incomplete and/or uncertain.

S.,

3 c j
December, 1978

YEDPA:

THE END OF THE FIRST YEAR IN

CHICAGO, COOK COUNTY, AND THE ROCKFORD CONSORJIUM

Myron Roomkin

Graduate School of Management

Northwestern University

and

Janet Weeks

School of Education

Northwestern University

I. The Major Issues Revisited

This report relies heavily on enrollment and financial data prepared by

prime spOnsors. *Only Rockford does its own intake; Chicago and Cook County compile figures which originate several administrative 'layers away from the prime

sponsor. There is evidence, however', that each prime sponsor has struggled to

;,`

.4"e

document accurately the character of its programs. Yet data in plans, modifications

of plans, quarterly rep ts, and amendments thereto are occasionally incofisistent.

Furthermore,-some data was not systematically collected, e.g., enrollees' laborforce status; other data pave not yet been issued, e.g., Rockford's expenditures by

program activity

1 and Chicago's Y,IP enrollment and expenditures. Our information

is least complete for SPEDY.

Pet 'Targeting

All three prime sponsors' YCCIP targets were sixteen to nineteen-year-oTd

economically disadvantaged dropouts. YETP in Chicago enrolled in-school youths,

while Rockford and Cook County designed out- f-school programs as well. Table 1

shows the distribution of participants-by chp acteristics and programs.

1" ... Money management problems. continue ) plague the local CETA office," in

Rockford, where the youth division is dependent upon the fiscal office for financial

status reports. ("Money Handling Troubles CETA," Rockford Morning Star, 10 Nov. 1978,

p.1.-

<

360 ,-
2 -, The table offers no surprises. The characteristics of Cook County's YCCIP

participants arq,dffferent from those of Chicago or Rockford because of the geographic distribution of projects. In a large county participants have limited

mobility. Those projects located in northern % Cook County had virtually no

black youth to attract. Areas populated by minorities could not always support

further public, employment, having no unfilledjobs. Once again, Cook County's

size and diversity presented, a problem to manpower planners. Rockford's YCCIP

options were also limited by an already existing abundance of PSE positions. Both

1(

prime sponsors were better able to cope, with YCCIP's intent when war er weather

`)permitted outdoor projects.

Table 1 also shows very low enrollments of girls in Y'CCIP programs.' It is

probably too facile to dismiss this finding with the conclusion that the nature

of YCCIP-jobs was a barrier to participation by girls.. Employment under SPEDYllis

often indistinguishable from that of YCCIP, yet SPEDY participants were approximatel

fifty percent feminine. One girl enrolled in Rockford's YCCIP so excelled at stadium repair that she was promoted to Participant-Supervisor. According to one of

the supervisors, she was superior tVhe boys in this position-- though she had a

-greater initial struggle to earn the cooperation of her work group. He said that

as boys were promoted they stopped working and started watching other members of

the group. In other programs as well, the gills appear to eclipse the boys. Girls

are generally more communicative and the boys defer to their verbal expertise. ,Perhaps women are disproportionately under-represented in YCCIP because they remain

in school longer and represent a smaller share of the dropout population.`

Table 2 shows the identified significant segments within the broader target

groupings. Chicago purposely'did not name the economically disadvahtagell'as one

of, its segments. All enrollees were to'be disadvantaged.
- 1 A -

Table 1: Distribution of Participants by Characteristics

Prime.

Sponsor

In 4-)a

Inl 4-In) 4-) C

Our -0 m m w

m -0

Cl. -0 m

Cummulative m

0

0

TOTAL 4w-) El 0

inS.- W r- (-0

FY 78 w

w m 4.1 Lr/ (As of e .-. 0 In In

. (0 a) de .c o U

, 9/30/78) z LL. 3 2: La

ila tra WA >A >A >A >A >A >A

17W

CL 0.4-

cr (t1 4- CL. 1.. ...., 4- - S- W (....) 0 '0 C0 W

X CO 0 Q La = 0 0

tra Ira Ira Ire as tra Ira

YCCIP 580 (61) (39) (36) (32) (68)

Chicago

YETP 5424 (50)450) (69) (18) (82)

YCCIP 133 (81) (19) (93) (55) (45)

Cook County

YETP 622 (52) (48) (74) (46) (54)

YCCIP 46 (89) (11) (78) (20)'(80)

Rockford

YETP 588 (50) (50) (93.3) (33) (65)a

(100) (86)(14) (0) (74)(0) (26) (1) (46) (2)(.7) (0) (4)

(100) (6) (94) (0) (0) (100) (.9) (52) (.5) (1) - (3.6)

(56) (100) (0) (0) (78) - - (0) (21) (5.3)(0) - - (7.5)

(80) (37) (1) (62) (71)(2) (27) (.3) (29) (3) (0) - (51)

(78) (76) (24) (0)(67) (33), (0) (33) (13) (0) - - (0) (28)

(73.6)113) (3) (84) (15)(.5)(84.5) (0) (35) (6)(.5) - - (48)(72)

a Total does not equal 100%.

36'7

t

3E
2- A -

Table 2: "Significant Segments By Progra,ni And Prime Sponsor:

1978.Planned and Reported, 1979 Planned

Significant Segments

. ,

FY 1978

YEW

'2plan

FY 1978

YETP

Actual

Y 109 FY 1978 FY 1978. FY 1979,

YETP 4YCCIP YCCIP_ YCCIP

Plan ., Plan Actual Plan

e

4

.

.

<

, 1

v)

. d

1. :White Youths

2. . Black, Youths , 3. Other .- 4. ;Spanish iziaking

Chicago

8%

78%

14%

17%

5%

78%

17%

19%-

32%

67%

.3%

34%

9% - 70%

1%

20%

I

7.7% 18%

78%- 81%

3% ° .8% , 17.6% 16.5%

1. Economically Disadvantaged

2, Young Offenders

3. Hard of Hearing h.. 4. Womeri`.... 5. Black

6. 'Spanish Speaking

7. ,Veterans

8. Handicapped

9. Less Than High School Education'

1.

Rockford Consortium

60%

40% -

5.7%

10%

50%

5-.7%

4.3%

100%

78%

13%

2%

11%

74%

4.3%

0%

76%

25%

--60%

.60%

24%

60% . 74%

35% -5.8%

15% 2.2% *I*

40% 56%

60% A 56.6%

10% 8%

5% 0%

10% .5%

60%

13.3%*

49%

60%

--49%

'-1. MinA

2. Economically. Disadvantaged

3. High-school Dorpouts°

Balanceof Cook County

30%

39%

100% '

47%

57%

400%

33%

'42%

90%

'47.5% 58%

47% 5% 80 %" 52% 3747. 45%47%

37

4 3 g-O 3
- 3 -

Rockford took a shotgun approach, earmarking a number of groups for Special

T attention. The goal was not always reached. For 1979, the list has been pared,

indicating some organizational learning. Veterans, for example, were virtually

'non-participants in both programs in Rockford -- and elsewhere. The omission of

the category Spanish speaking is inexplicable.

A new targeted segment tn Rockford -- those with less than a high school

education -- reflects "the local desire . . . that CETA youth programming become

more influential in shifting the priority from work to school" (SPEDY Plan, p.2).

Unlike the classification dropout, the relabeled segment assumes that youth will

continue education until graduation and is reflective of Rockford's policy emphasis on education in 1979. The new classification has the added benefit of not

stigmatizing kids.

Unlike -Rockford, the others have made no changes in the characteristics of

.significantsegments.they will serve.

Sponsors also had the option to alter the relative representation of enrollees

from these selected tegments,*based on a change in policy or experience. Nonetheless,

there. appear to be few big changes in planned representation. This is especially,,

. curious in Cook County's case, since enrollments of significant segments far

Vexceeded expectations. Perhaps it was Cook County's maw" Management Inform-

. ation System which 'could not monitor. program enrollments close enough. The

reaffirmation of last year's enrollment goalsmi,ght,also reflect the desires fa

the subgrlttees who, for.the most part, remain the same.

Targeting assumes that youth of particular qualities will be attracted or can

be directed to certain programs. Experience in the three studied prime sponsor-

. ships confirms that,sif youth do have their own agenda or strategy for seekinga

services, it is not at odds with the intentions program operators. It might

O

s
-4- z

even be more stronglkexpressed that kids do not generally see big differences

in rewards and experiences among programs. (Limited contradictory evidence

will be cited' presently;) Far the most part, the major option for kids is not

A

movement among programs but termination of eir CETA enrollment.

A Rockford planner concurs. /In her-6pinion, it is typical of adults, but

atypical of adolescents, ,to choose programs on the basiscofinancial return.

Our own interviews with participants in all jurisdictions buttress this position.

The only times kids express dissatisfaction over wages is when they learn youths

in other government pro.grams are earning-more.. The publicly employed students

(\ in Chicago's YETP are resentful of their inability to earn As much total income as

their counterparts in private YETP jobs. The second group works three hours a

week more. A twenty-year-old YCCIP participant in Chicago had a similar basis

for HO dissatisfaction:

There should be higher pay -- atleast three dollars an'hour for eighteenyear-olds and.up. When you get older, you need at least three bucks an hour.

Neighborhood Youth Corps gets three twenty five to start.

. The choice betwee4 public and private empibyment under Chicago's YETP is net

left to Participants. In order to achieve private cooperation, it Was necessary to

agree that employers cou'ld interview and hire as-they chose. Among YETP applicants,

the most able are sent for interviews. They are identified by the Board of .Education

0

ses, n and ,the Chicago Alliance of Business /Manpower Services, the two prigram

agents who arrange private jobs.

The Rockfor SPEDY program probably offered youth the most freedom of all

the programs w looked at. The prime sponsor included one two-dayla-we A SPEDY

prog?'am of weeks' duration for those who wanted to divide their'summer between

work and play. Applicants were also inpted,to expre s their preferences about

occupation-related projects within SPEDY, e.g., welding, graphic arts, though

. . . selection Vid not affect their wages.

. ' P

5. 0 - 4. 3 ^-i):. 41.

4

3 4/

. ,I.,.
5

The sponsors' ability to meet enrollment targets was influenced by the

summertime opportunities for youth. As ,Table 3 suggests, kids have summer optionS

to YCOPA. The first panel shows a fourth-quarter increase in the rate of negative

terminations, while the second shows an increase in the employment rate for the

same period. Judging from.casual observation in the absence of harddata,Ca

Chicago planner agreed that Chicago's YCCIP, too, lost participants during summer.

One canill'only speculate as to the reason for these movements- Disaggregated

data in Cook County indicate that terminationioare not concentrated among

particUlar groups of enrollees.

Local administrators have their own intuitive explaukions. A school 44

representative in Cook County/said that enrollees remained in programs when they

saw them as a supplement to summer school and attendance could lead to early

graduation. He was certain that private-sector jobs providing forty-hour weeks.'

.114Y were easily available. Indeed, at least the northern portion of Co ok County is

heavily speckled with help wanted signs. A CETA staff member in Rockford held

that kids who opted for the two-day program were motivated by the same educational.

. objective as those in Cook County as well as by indefinite vacatiRn plans.

Table 3: Cumulative Rates of Negative Termination. and Employment Entered by

Program and Prime Sponsor

PANEL A? NEGATIVE TERMINATION RATE

Balance of

Cook County

Rockford

Consortium Chicago

Quarter Quarter, Quarter

Program 2 ,3 , 4 2 3 4 2 3 4

ETP 0% 7.4% 26.4%a 0% ,5.3% 12% a .6% 5.9% i8.4%

:YCCI Q% 9.7% 15%3* 6% 6.5% 32.6% 9% 11.6% '22%

4

373
t

. .

Table 3 (cont.)

6-

_ PANEL 8:1 EMPIOYMENT ENTERED RATE

b

YETP 0% 3. 17% 0% 2.5% 6.1% .03% s'1% 3.7%

YCCIP 0% 2% 21% 0% 9.6% 19k6% 0% 1.3% 4.3%,

aAvailable'tB0 and LEA data indicate that the out-o-schbOl rate i,s 3713% and the

in-school rate is 21'.5%. c. .bAvailable CB0 and LEA data indicate that the out -of- school rate is 18.h and the

in-school rate is 16%.

One more factor is relevant to the kids' search for services. Rockfo41 SPEDY

and YETP participants were asked one question about1their willingness to relenrol

wq, in fall programs. Their negative and positive answers are instructive. Those

who wrote no added that they had either fOund a job.or, more frequently, that

school sports or homework would leave no time for'YETP. Those who wanted admit-

. tance;added their reasons, a few of which are quoted here:

Because I thought it was fun.

t's nothing to .6 when you isn't working.

need a new car and more experience:.

So I can have $$ in the summer,

I

VN,

. I'm,very glad I work here because it's more than just something to

do.. It's an.idventure. 14

B. Program Mix

The,distri6utionspf enrollments and, expenditures by program activity are

. reported in Table 4. We caution thg reader in interpreting these data.that prime

sponsors may not share common definitions when classifying pro rams and services.

4 v-cs

,

3 7).'
375

- 6A -

/1, 4t, Table 4: Distribution of Planned and Actual Enrollments and Expenditures by Program Activity

(Planned Percentages in Parentheses)

'rime ,ponsor

111

Enrol lments Expenditure

...-.. L.) a al V) *

e 0 al r.- > 4-) U C U C U 0 E U 0

U n:1 a. C c ,--- Cl c ,- In 0 Cr) c

..... ..-W 0 s.: gva.l.... 4-) al r- S- r- tj 0 C r# C CLI CummulaC) Cl W

I C) V) >11 C

0 Cl 4 -; r.-4 >

....- , 0. S- C

)1:1 0. C E Cl W O. 0

)- ,VI 0 X 4-, al

:s...,,I.:,,q r I. S- LLI 1- U

.14 W Mr- al 44 C> S.. 4-10W W C S.. 4-) 0 Cl 0 S.. V) ,-. S. til L.

IV I-. S- O. U O. S- O. O. ect i. "1"13 Mr" a"(13 => 2 tive m m 1.-- s. Q. (..) O s.. c m s.. 0 Cummulative

ul.- o t.L., gei, cEdi ,L_-,,,, .8 Total ul-- c:, .., LLJ > LLI (.3 E I-.. V) 0 Program S.. r, 0 X r- S.. ^D 0 X 0 X a:1 CLI S.. al 4..) Total .

It42 IR 2c12 Ice as Ice 202 t ....,) IR 202 202 Ice Ice an IR

YCCIP

".Ook,County

(100%) (118) (100%) ( ,140)

100% . 133 100% , $381,000

`YETP (15.6 %) (84.4%) "(835) )1

28.5% 71.5% 622

YCCIP (100%) (375)

:hicago i6 586 YETP (97%)b (30%) (4,338)

82% 18% 5,424

YCCIP (100%) (70)

' 46

!ockford

YETP (22%) (9%) (33.3%) .(22.2%)(22.2%) (450)

6.3% .2%, 6.3% 48% 42% 588

(24.8%) (74.4%) ° (.8%'($2,180,231)

35.1% 62.4% 2.3% $760,672

4

(100%) $1,866,409)

100% $780,407

(99%)a (1%) $6,180,108)

r 90.4% 9% .5% $4,911,088

e

-(100%) $140,000-

$45,245

(18.36:2%)(20%1 (23%) (16%) (16.4 %) ($544,994)

ill $5itp,681

a Includes private-seCtor.employnnent.

376 .
J-N-)

A. Expenditures

. - 6B -

TAXA 51 Planned and Reported delyndlture and Enr

Balance of Cook County

laont of Program, Prime Sp.Insor, and liar

PANEL Is rxrP Chicago RoekftlIrtonsortrum

FT 1978 FT 1978° _FT 1979 FT 1973 FT 1978 . FT 1979 FT 1978 FT 1978 PT 1979

PLItH 4019AL PLAN FLAB ACTUAL PLAN PLAN AZTU.U. MAR

1. Initial Plan (1001) 2. Modified Plan

.3. A Administration 4. % Wages'and Pringsa 5 % Allowances

6. % vort-mis, superrision

7. % Training. 3. A Sarricea

12,180,231

1,060,239 15% YA,

. 3%

,

7%

10%

r 760,672

is% 501

4%O.

201

9. Enrollnenta 1. Total Mr-Ser 835 622 2, Average Nueber 790d -

3, Total Coat For Participant 32611 32223 4. Average Cost Par Partiet. 32760

53,402,532 $6,180,100 34,911,038 36,913,500 s 54'4,994 $ 518,661 s 411844

,

ti. -

4 (no canna.) -

15% 12.5 10,« 12% 20% 19% 19.4% 581 75% 83.6% 55% 231 372 131

.. 14,4 4% 21 15.41

6.9% . .8% , 3% 2,1 11A .91 144 10 21.2:: t6%. 6A 4.7% 161 '361 241 311

me

980 5103 5424 : 4023 . 450 . 588 450 82o? 3310

4830d ., 28180 4 33472 31210 3905 31211 3882 31404 r

14149 31279 :::::: 11362- 31900 9

.

A. 'Lewd/tures

Balance of Cook County PA= II. =IP'

Chicago Rockford Consortium

FT 1978 Fr42973e FT 1979 FT 1978 FT 2978* FT 1979_' FT 1978 FT 1978 kr 1979

PLAN ACTUAL PLAN PLAN ACTUAL PLAN 'PLAN ACTUAL PLAN

1. 1=1t4f1 Plan (3001) 5534040 3381,000 3863,890 51,266,409 3 730,409 31,617,760 3140,000 345,245 1175,759 2. Modified Plan 447,884 - ...... 129,904

. 3. % Administration 11: 141 15% 5% 5.6,1 10% 61 132. 61

4. ,6 dage and Frin4es 611 511 65% 751 86A -\ 7., 62% 40% , 731 5. A Allowances -

6. A Work-mite Supervision 181 24$ 33%- 15$ 4% 10% - 30% 47% 9.2%

7. % Tr4agniAg &A '71 44 -. .... A

3% S

6.4 8. % Services 4% .4% 5; 4.3; 5% z% '"r - .44' 1

'D. Enrollments \

a. , 1. Total *bar 118', 153 250 375 580 679 70 46 50 2. Arormge Mater 99d 213", 375b - 5790 613d 390 3. Total Cost Per Parti412,1ny' 1:3.4 * *2855 33455 *3377 *1346 *2383 , $2000 3734 13535

or 4. Average Coat Per Partle'e 35405 . r 24056 S3387, 12795 12333 14552 b'1: of planne1 enrollment b7 quarter/4 45tma at planned enrollment for 3 ,,uarter313. '7ourth-quartor report will be ssendod. 041/B2.

0.

3 7 ,

din
4

7 C. Planned versus Actual Performance

,A comparison of YETP and YCCIP planned and actual perform ce by prism

.,sponsor is provided in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4 shows only one ins ce o.P a .sizeable gap between planned and achieyed performancein YETP activities:

Initially Rockford Jiad hoped to spread its Money across many different treatments. AS the year progressed the expenditures on classroom training, OJT, and

work experience fell short of the goal. As younger clients came forward, career

employment experience and training services picked up the slack, ending up with

about twice their intended share of resources.'

.According to Table 5, all prime sponsors spent less money than planned.

Spending was curtailed partly because program starts were delayed.

These factors alone, however, do not explain why Cook, County spent only about

one-third of its YETP allocations and Rockford spent an equally small portion of

its Y.CCIP monies. In both instances, the sponsors experienced difficulties in

4 k

finding an ample supply of enrollees or training and educitional sites. . (See

Our preYious reports on this matter.) The smaller-than-expected enrollments in

both cases seems to have affected the distribution of

re. expenditures aswell, resulting in a smaller-than-expected-hre of )-(/sources going to wages.

/7

Cook County continued to solicit appliations in ordeto obligate the surplus

,funds. The Count) awarded a grant under YETP to the Illinois Dangerous Drugs'

Rehabilitative Systems, and it funded requests for summer worksftes under the

YETI' program by permitting one CB0 to incorporate its sites under the existing

YETP agreemen

Eyen though the overall level of spending was affected, sponsors appear to

have Opt pretty 'close to the unit costs of programs.

The shortened project-year did not stop sponsors from exceeding enrollment

estimates in several case7 Under YETP programs, most notably in Chicago.

ment expansions,permitted Rockford, for example, to reduce the per-participan

378
- 8 -

costs of programs -c using grey estimates of program enrollments. But even

where enrollments fell short of a goal, total an4 average cost per participant

declined. The implication, one that cannot easily be verified, is that sponsors

may have 6e1estimated the cost of programs in the initial year. Considering

the fact that programs will be fUnded at even higtier levels next year, it remains to be seen if sponsors continue to run some well-endowed programs or begin

to expand enrollnients.

Table 6 shows plipnned and actual cumulative enrollments by prime sponsor,

program, and quarter.

6: 1978 Pipanned end Actual and 1979 Planned'Cumulati,ve

Enrollments by Program, Prime Sponsor, and Quarter

Prime Sponsor Program Quarter FY 1978

Plan

FY 1978

Actual

FY 1978 ,.

Plan

Chicago

0

YETP

YCCIP4

12

3

4

12

3

4

, 4

0.

4553

4831

5108

375

375

375

375

. 0

3410

4967

5424

233

380

589

...

4023

3447

2954

859

325

647

663

679

Rockford

Consortium

. YETP -

YCCIP

12

3

4

1

2

3

4

Ait

300

'450

450

0

40

70

70

) ..)

. ..

Alibi_

lip

0

116

475

588

0' 15;-

31

'46

,,, 175

250

450

6050

1,

20

40

45

50

Balance of

Cook County

YETP

YCCIP

12

3

42

3

4

.0

745

790

835

7 111

0

118

0

. '206

447

622,

5.1 104

133 .

660

20

920

980

, 200

2 25

250

3 79

4
Due tcA1OL's

-9.,

ndate to confine FY 1979 spending to seventy-three'percent of

4 ,the.FY 1978 aflocation,,thicago's planned YETP enrollments will decrease markedly

during. the foUrth-qua;-ter. Scheduled enrollments are based on projected rates

of attrition, according to a ChiCago planneri, If no attrition occurs, programS

o will have to be cut at an earlier date. cftaiTed spending has riot

4

been thuch of an issue among the thee prime sponsor's. The more important matter

tt:t4 , bothering each sponsor is'theo c9 ricting, instructions sent,by DOL. Cook County

rather wryly observes that.they are headinginto FY 1979 with nearly the same funds

available as they had in the previous year, since they were unable to obligate

them, initial orders from DOL notwithstanding. Rockford addresses thft problem in

its Annual Youth Report:

With the requirements put on the rime to set a design, hire and train

staff, meet and encourage comMitni cooperati4 meet and promote LEA

contraC , and establish. public re Wpns pr rams to reach eligible

youth.,, fe last thing that is need 'i0olumps.of paper information'

with con radicting and conflicting information'. What results is that

,, plans are made, programs designed and information given out that change

and vary by'each new piece of paper'received'from

n7 This process cannot be changed, but disceiminatiori, in terms of the

amount and.quality of messages sent is signiiicarit to program success ....

4 ?- The start-up of 1979 has had a lot o e same 41)itites because, of the

speculation of funding level and tent t,ve reewtmeikot continuation of

funding. 4 4

The intent for this contract gear is to deal with quility rather' than

quantity activities and take the time to see what does and does,not work.

Thereare no answers' -to youth.employment, only numerous ideas; now it is

time to examine someof these -ideas and see what effects are able to be

determined. (p.6)

The ,point all prime sponsors would make'is that they can deal with, just'

.about any instructions as long as they can test in their certainty.

,!b. Planning for 1979

fY 1979.

" expenditure and enrollment planning decisions are reported in Fable

4 5 previously introduced. As noted, program size is expected to inCreate next year

above the planned levels of-FY 1978. Only reduction in program'size will` take

Ir. - 3 0
-10--

place in Rocilord's YCCIP program. -Pro -rated expenditures under'YETP will be

increased next year. In Cook County, the added expense comes from, inter alii,

a more extensive involvement with schools, LEA agreements, prime sponsors now

know, are expensive for the number of kids involved. This is not to say, however,

that school programs are necessarily less, cost - effective. Rockford too has reoriented its programs towards education and the educational institution.

Under YCCIP, probably the most important shift istan apparent lessening of

supervisory ratios accompanied b' a deemphasis -in the amount of work-site

activity relative to activities elsewhere. These changes, for example, account

for the reduction in the percentage of Rockford's allocation to-work-ite supervision, from,30 to 9.2 percent. Chicago, too, will cut its share allocated to

worksite supervision, by about one-third (15 to 10 percent).

In previous reports we have stressed that differences in the planning

activities among prime sponsors have their source in the characteristics of their

jurisdictions." A brief 1.eiteratiOn of the distinctive qualities of spoTaorships .

may be useful. Chicago has a well developed CETA-delivery machine. All programs

are subcontracted to program agents who: in turn, may subcontract (or not) to

CBOs aroiind° the city. orogram agenls serve as insulatort between CETA staff

and the vast -- d occasional ressive = universe of,need. Din their absence

4

. 4

. Chicago to shave been faced with an impossible chore: selecting arid laCing --4

.

. , 5000 kid in. 561 work sites : -

J.;

'.. , 11.- . #

, $ art. from, the,probleins causgdbyt.itssize and aiVersity, Cook County faces

, .

. ...

' Is ,.., - ..i.

.

, .

,,

s

, 1 a small.nOlbe of CBOs concerned.00:youth employTet and even fever that have

. clients ' , 46,. . ., c .

, ;,.. Ak.

Ii0igibl. On therither tiand,if,-

.- They haVg. had "long, Obl a ti ohshi ps with a? : .

, ..*. .! !. , 111_''' .,,.., : f . A. number X sqburban,high schoov'endlitia've 4twaysfbeimte4 a sizele.gopOrtion of t

,p, , ..,,,.,

! f.

, ..

, .CETA allocatioQs to youth and have'bIrcamalended for tit LEA igraiivk,WTOop ..,, N

i , Ak ' ,-, . , , ;, 't: :#,-;"

outs. -Betause they 'brought in no neW-staf:ffior rEpPA; o91( C004 pfannees.yerf

'.,. . . ' ' 8 rie

t f

a. A lkili ,,itoe.. %.

' 3 _so.' 1. .

,. :,,f k . .," 7 ; . f
more burdened than those elsewhercr. If anything, the,1979'squation.is wor e.

, The Manpower Offjc was added to the County 's civil service system. Examination

resultsproduced som sizeable personnel shifts and losses so that not all re:

,. mdining staff members a e working in familiar areas.

.

4.:- y t., . :, Rockford, it will be recalled, embracedYEDPA enthusiasiically. CETA.youth-

. ir d,'. , ,, staf faced a community containing few, youth employment agencies. 5 order to , - meet the task, it created CBOs and wooed schools. Rockford `added staff,'initiated

- "

df . ,

,4. _ r ,a ,youth council, thinedthecoun61, and, in generat'yhipped up a good deal of ,,,0`

1 , enthusiasm. T ey lengthily debated any vagueness in the,Regulations, e.g

;

,t,. ,show

was an in-sch 1 youth "most in need" of services to` be identified71. Most of

-.,... .. . . 4,

all, they got invoiVed in Knowledge development, designing elaborate experiments.

Their relatively smallesize allows staff members to become familiar with work -sites

""

,.. ,

.' and even, frequeWy,,,to know partiCiliants! nalies., It also permits CETA staff,

,

, ,, , , s. to holdweekly meetings with CBO directors and,supervisors. During these sesSions, .' _ . . ,

. .

. . , ,participant,;needs are treated individually., ttchniaal requpements'aregxfilaih4d,

.e' . . ,

e 0 , and some Issues are debated. buring_ourfcent`xjsitl.for examPlei,groap.membArs

, 1

0 4 .0 ;.. W 0.* 0

O ' # bridle6 at the need to report a negat4vg terminatiwforaHuth, who m6es,,10,11.4,

' !04,,,,1 Roaa'Ali, 60 cited.a boy whb.had mOveg,etellogi, atid observed that he was,Nliting

, ...,. , . -

f t

-0- 441 ti.1 3 s 4 4 2 NI ) 4 fon a letter' tp 4050 ,nloArthe boyl had found: d j 0 b . 14TMe. xiewS would al low him to

% 1,

,> i...7;

t t41i . 4w'SP/

0 ?6' tilt 1''

4 ''. 4. '

, 4 4 . . yen ort % pqk:t I V R' -ttr Mild

. . , 40 A

4

.., . 0 0. 4I The 1$79 plans hold feW suf.-wisest largely because prime sponsors have

, ,, .,-f i

,.. . .\

'4, ,'prer.djJed them'An a manner consistent with their past approaches to andekperiences

. , , - ,,., 4, .....,, Under the law. Chicago and Cook tourity have engaged in a process best defined as

0

,,i

' fhcr mental. Some changes frO the past year's operation have been made. But, on

4

sat the.w Qle,,the important olannIngissues,involve the utilization of new funds.

6 'According to Rockford's YETP Annual Youth Report, this issue is very much alive.

"The regulations require that we serve.only those in-school youth that are 'mast irk

need'; therefore, we are looking for recommendations in this area of what verification

is needed."(p.4)

k.

., 4

352
- 12 -

Chicago's plans are chiefly altered only insofar as DOL'has required, e.g:,

. a non-finantial agreemen'with the Job Corps has been added; and a proportion of

YETP funds has been allocated to the employment service which will pay allowances,

replacing the wages paid in 1978 by private employers. According to a youth

planner, Chicago has tampered little with first-year arrangements, prefering to

allow them a full year's trial.' Planningfbr 1979'was a matter of subtracting

thdse will( sites which were found inadequate, e.g., had not achieved planned

enrollments, showed audit exceptions, hid not provided adequate supervision, or

had proved to be more self than youth-serving.

There has been a noticeable. growth in the participation of young members

on the Chicago Youth Planning Council. Ther chief youth planner, who has regularly

encouraged the kids to speak interestingly opines that these kids 4ave finally

learned parliamentary procedure. Apparently they have had a good deal of practice,

since the Council met five times between, the beginning of August and the end of

September.

Si An issue of great concern to Chicago has been DOLLsdle;ision that.kids employed in tlye, private sector must be paid allowances and may not receive wages,

from employers. pOL's explanation that this system will avoid subsidizing wages

for the private sector is unconvincing to the prime sponsor; As one representative

noted, "Kids feel they are back ,on welfare." In the annual youth report, the

sponsor cites two otheer deficiencieq of the system: (1) the cost of thb employ-'

ment service contract for payroll had previously been absorbed by employers; and

(2) employers dislike the attendant paperwork. The reporl goes on to make the

following case: If These disadvantages of the new payment system pose a serious threat to

the effectiveness of FY 1979 VEP program. Accordingly, it is recommended

that regulatory changes be made relating to the payment of VEP enrollees.

VEP programs offer a job learning experience that is distinctly different

'from other educational 'emplqyment and training p"rograms. The involvement of
- 13 -

the private sector and the substantial benefits to the participant derived

therefrom justify the development of regulator! provisions relating specifically

to VEP. Such provisions.should,allow for the payment of participants by

employers in fhe for'm of wages.'

Cook County's 1979 plans., like Chicago's,(are not radically different from

last year's, although the prime sponsor believes its second-year'programs are

stronger. Perhaps the greatest change has been the targeted agt for YCCIP and

YETP out-of-school prpgrams. According to a program planner, subgrantees asked

that the original sixteen - and seventeen- year -old restriction:be:lifted, for "if

was not possible to maintain enrollment levelg with such a limited age population

\ to dr4w from."

2 The County's commitment to educating dropouts for high school diplomas or GEDs

is reaffirmed through the three major programmatic efforts initially developed in

1978, though only in 1979 have they been firmly categorized:

1. An in-school program for potential dropouts and/or college-bound youth;

2. An in-school program for dropouts who agree to enroll in a program

leading to a diploma; and

3. A program for high-school dropouts who are unable or unwilling to return

to school or take GED classes (through opportunity will be available).

As Table 5 has shown, these ventures will be costly, yet the educational opporimnities are generally valued by dropouts with whom:we spoke. . Fiveboys from one

project said they intended to present their work-experience and GEDs as credentials

when they applied for construction jobs. One remarked, "If you don't have GED or

an ex impossible to get a ecent job." Another skid: "The best part

of this is because of the experience and.GED." A third was less optimistjc about

the worth of the GED vis -a -vis d higp-school diplomat "At most places you've

got to. have the piece of paper."

.1Year-End'Youth Report: YETP and YCCIP, City of Chicago, Mayor's Office of

Manpower, October, 1978; p.8.

2SPEDY planned enrollments were not achieved in Cook County even though fourteen-

'to twenty- one -year olds were invited to apply.

3S2
- 14 -

For its YETP program Cook County also plans to increase-the turnover of

participants as they become eligible-for classroom training or OJT. Members of

the out-of-school portion of YETP will be observed at assessment centers, for which

negotiations are yet underway. Participants, it is believed, could benefit from

this arrangement, which has the added virtue of correcting for a. possible reduction

'in inter-program transfers in the event of a shortage of Title I funds.

At present, contractors for YCCIP in Cook County have not been totally

identified. One 1978 subgrantee withdrew when, according to a spokesman, the

prime Sponsor asked it to extend the existing program for'three months. Since

operators elsewhere have agreed to such requests,,it is not clear why this CBO

objected.

The County has also decided not to approve a proposal upless it calls for a

placement rate of 4t least fifty percent. This constitutes a stronv commitment to

jobs and work experience, and a balance to the eduational emphasis adopted by

. the Prime sponsor.

'Cook County's non-financial agreement with the Employment Service (IBES)

is.being modified this year. Jobs for out-Of-school applicants will be listed with

.the local IBES office and with CETA IBES Intake Units for referral purposes. In addition, a plaCement coordinator will be available to assist agencies wItth participants they cannot place. Since LEAs are not involved in,

T

the agreemep44 tho

IBES will not, presumably, be asked to serve a great many enrollees.

The planning council has met five times "between the implementation of youth

and the end of FY 1978," according to th'e Cook County prime sponsor. But a recentrequest for monthly meetings has been voted down by two-thirds of the members.

Cock County youth members remain minimally-responsive pedhaps because they have

not attended as many meetingS as their counterparts in Chicago.

3 =)
- 15 -

Rockford, in contrast to the o s, did not extend programs by reaffirming

existing goals. YEDPA has been planned'de novo in this city. The few continutp5

projects are included in the plans only because they suit the change in direction.

Perhaps the best way to introduce the 1979 plans is to note that they allow for a

od deal of flexibility. InSofar as CETA can be individualized, Rockford has

done so for 1979, probably an outgrowth of the weekly conferences about_clients

iedabove.

The Rockford Consortial stratefies the YETP program on the basis of Client'

age. As a statement of policy, Rockford believes CETA dollars shpuldbe placed

behindAong-term goals. Fourteen and fifteen year olds will be served in aining

and Learning Career Cente S s. The centers are intended to provide pre-employment

training and career exposmor to youngsters whose worNs limited by either child

labor or mtnimumlwage laws. Tutoring will 6e provided in "basic reading, writin,g,

and math skills,as needed to enter the world of work".

1 As part of the project,

,participants will practice their own skills by tutoring younger neighborhood

children. Partic.Wnts will earn about $22 a week.

For planning purposes, youth who are sixteen and over are divided between

those in school and those out of school. All participants, irrespective of school

status, will spend their first sixteen program hours in an assessment center (also

available to non-eligible youths). Assessment will be made in the following areas;

1. The participant's readiness to seek employment, including his ability

to complete job applications-, interview, and make use of resources;

2. The participant's workmanship skills, including dependability, cooperation,'

readiness to take' responsibility and accept criticism, and desire for

personal improvement.

1Rockford FY 1979 YETP Pla, AddeIim:e.

A 3eG

0

Ir
- 16 -

3.\The participant's plan, which balances the

local labor market, the yout 's career goals, his, basic skills, his

deficits, and his particular interests, abilities, and aptitudes.

After counseling, the youth will be assigned to a contractor for work

experience. An Assessment team will periodically review these referrals in light

of the enrollees', individual plans. Counselors aad contractors will attend to

each participant's specificgoa15, describing progress monthly. These activities

have,dictated Rockford's principal research and development question: can this

goal-specific training and work\experienCe system lead to independent work

readiness?

0 Rockford's LEA activities hope to make schools more aware of youth Career

needs. As,we predicted in our second report, classroom teachers moved to protect

thetr.lcademic turfs. Consequently YETP programs will.no longer teachsin-school

academic credit courses. Moreover, kids assigned to the special courses were

stigmatized as CETA youth, according to one versioe*Of the 1979 plan.1 Only one

of the 1978 participating LEAs was agreeable to going forward with the original

CETA-sponsored alternative education program. As a result, school-assigndd staff

will now act as Careerinucatlon Liasons between the school and the growing youth

network in Rockford. They will'serve as school facilitators and counselors for

'YETP participants in two LEAs.

For out-of-school programs, new YETP participants will be assigned to work

experience, VEP, or OJT on the basis of employability assessments. Contractors will

. be respQnsible for work and training. CETA-assigned counselors, will provide seeded '

support. And placemenj will be handled by CETA. The plan anticipates that as

contractors become more experienced in youth work, they will assume support and

placement tasks. c

1 This presumptive guilt-by-association has also Plagued at least one Cook' -

County LEA.

el I . P
- 17 -

As.a result of what the youth director calls "CETA heat," Rockford has

"publicly committed" itself to a high turnover.of participants. "We can't be a

holding ground fOr disadvantaged youth." Thus,."We wart to know the reason if a

A A sixteen- year -old isn't employed in .four months."

- Academic credit, in both, out-of-school YETPand YCCIP, will be awarded

--thrdugff- ail alternative education pragram,.not_thesame_04 to which 1978...particiN

pants were referred. Among other disadvantages, tf4 origina) alternative school

admitted students only if they were .within a few7credit-hOuns of graduation.

P4,ur projects will replace last year's biw 65mmunity YCCIP effort -- the

renovation of a stadium. A facility for the long-term care of youth will be

expanded; projects owned and operated by the Rockford Housing authority will

, - be upgraded; not-for-profit and government agencies needing repair and renovation

will be 'serviced by a youth crew; and a community ceryr will be renovated and

some of its services provided by YCCIP enrollees.

Work-experience credit will be awarded by the publiC schools' adult evening

division. Rockford's youth director is understandably pleased with this plan,

fdr evening-school,credits are transferable to day programs. Since by law only

two work credits may be applied toward, graduation, academic and work credits are

both necessary to Rockford's educational approach.

. When we askealthe,Rockford youth director what first-year lessons had been

incorporated into the -FY 1979 plans, he-rseplied, "Almost everything."

E. Data

We have mentioned earlier the sincere efforts of the three prime sponsors to .

report accurate information requested by DOL.

//

Prime sponsors appear particularly rigorous in the collection of data which

, are the bases for subcontractor payments and less so about, say, enrollees' labor=
- 18.-

1.

force status. In Rockford and Cook County, CBOs have made errors on time sheets

with the consequence that partiOipant checks have been delayed. A.Rockford

spokesMan called this "a-real problem over the summer," and one participant

found this fault with SPEDY: "my dam checks." Financial errors are not tolerated,

and nothlnggoes\fqrward untilthey are corrected. ItAghtbe added that,

according to Rockford, such mistakes are often caused by the "unrellability of

kids," i.e., they are not also where they are supposed to be. Cook County states:

"Prime Sponsor collects only data required by the Department f Labor." Lt could

add that occasionally theo.;Oonsori recollects the data because of the errors.

AlI Prime sponsors studied have gone beyond DOL requirements in trying to

. \\, assure client eligibility.' This task is fairly thankless. A representative tf-

. the Chicago Board.of Education found,another dimension to the problem: kids

can obtain blank W-2 forms at the IRS office and make themselves eligiple.4 The

opposite case was reported by a CVA representati've from Minnesota;their eligibility

verification process discovered that school?' altered applicants' forms -- substi7

..

tuting a lower income than that reported by the student in order Ito secure

. preferred employees fOr the school.

A youth planner in Chicago stated the case spccinctly: "Data are only as.

accurate as t4e person who reports them."

F. Evaluation 4

Dul-ing\the first year, the three jurisdictions have engaged in evaluation

,

activities that are more properly. labeled as intensive monitoring and process

evaluation.

11 .A basic monitoring scheme is.found in all three'cases: subcontractors have

, .

.

. . A . submitted self-reports and CETA staff.monttors have made sitesvisits. In their

. , .

. reports, contractors typically provide information on fiscal orexpeoditure pa'fferns,

verification of client eligibility (except in Rockford), client.progress reports,

4 .---,

3S9
and other process-oriented or administrative data.

.Site visits vary, in terms of their frequency and thoroughness. Bi-weekly . visits have been, conducted in Rockforwhereas Cook County visits sites once a

month. Chicago, perhaps because of the large number ofsites, has'visited once.

Occassionally unscheduled site visits have been made at the request of participants.V.,

In one instance it Was to investigate a participant's allegation that his supervisor was rewiring kickbacks from the kids. ./

Although it is often overlooked, partiCipants themselves serve as importint

instruments of monitoring programs. Youth, especially urban youth, expect the

programs'to live up to the billing and, asW have judged, are quick to complain

when they don't.

Our own experience suggests that unscheduled site visits may give misleading

impressions. Onthe basis of -tin early - summer visit to Rockford's stadium

renovation, we would have reported that, in every respect,' the project was

A exemplary. Kids were working hard, some with a much-admired union carpenter,

0

others with warm, yet firm, supervisors. On a later trip, we found a much

= different project. Because the kids,had complained, several supervisors were gone

to find the kids' overdue paycheck's, when leaving an unsupervised work group smokin'

cigarettes in a lavatory as they cleaned paintbrushei with gasoline. A ,third visit

might have discoyered yet another project.

The national clamorover CETA peccadillos has naturally made prime sponsors

more concerned about compliance and administrative rigor, but none of our studied

jurisdictions has taken an adversary attitude toward its subcontraitors. As a

Rockford administrator remarked: "There is a degree o gopd faith necessary in

e working with cooperating agencies."

330
-20-

Some of the sponsors have supplemented the contractor reports and site visits

with evaluative information of different types, including: Participant assessments

of programs and supervisors; participant self4ppraisals; and employer evaluations

of*kids. There is no evidence, however, that these pieces of information result

At in any behavioral changes. A 1977 Chicago SPEDY questionnaire, for instance,

, taught the prime sponsor that kids like maintenance-wor)( least. But there is

little Chicago can do to avoid main ance jobs. When Rockford completes its

,first-year knowledge-development activities, 'we may be...able to offer a counterexample.

No doubt each sponsor has gathered a vast amount of data for the purposes of

monitoring and evaluating performance.. Nonetheless, the evaluative activities of

the prime-sponsorsehave not been especially rigordas-. Rockford, perhaps the most

conscientious of evaluators in our sample, held Periodic reviews'to compare each

agency's actual performance With its planned performance: Similar assessments

were also carried out --,bt4 probably not as often -- by Cook county and Chicago.

Beyond this rudimentary step in evaluation, none of the,sponsors

-sPer ventured by , attempting to bring quantifi-Catton and rigor to the evaluation process. With

the exception of Rockford, little of any resources were-devoted to oultcome evaluations:

The favored information in the evaluation process tended to 4p...quy alitative

judgements based on reputation and casual observation. Thus., if a discrepancy

between the supposed goal. and performance of a project-was discovered, sponsors

felt justified in offsetting this finding. by interjecting a qualitative judgement

about the Aesirabyty or effectiveness of a program. Sponsors Sere, in fact, en-

. couraged to gives weight to the more qualitative'criteril of performance by DOL's

4 instructions that they make fundtng decisions on the baSis of suchdiubjective

indicators as "demonstrated effectiveness."
- 21 -

Our intent is not to criticize these efforts. Often contractor reports

6 and site visits made by the prime sponsor identified important shortcomings in

program operatIns. The quality.of supervision in some Chicago programs,'for

% , example,'was judg d by the sponsor to be inadequate. This deficiency was corrected

in the replanning for FY 1979.

,Perhaps as students of evaluation we are projecting our own values in evaluating

the-evaluations of -studied A6etici es'. A fair assessment,of their ti es ,.would_

be to conclude that (1) they were appropriate as far as they went, and (2) prime

sponsors do not see an incremental gain from going further in this process. The

fact is, prime sponsors in this stNdy are gykierally satisfied with the way firstyear programs were implemented. Perhaps they did not go further because of the

rush to implement YEDPA initiThy-and the changing signals (i.e., lincertainty).

about the future character of CETA and YEDPA over the past few months, For whatever

reason, a requestioning of fundamental objectives, was not in the cards.

Rockford, as nearly always, is a special case. For the\second year it has - shifted its programming to better serve young participants as a direct result of

monitori*the age of applicants. (Parenthetically, centralized intake in Rock8 - ford may,have aided the sponsor in recognizing that they. were gettinglyoungerkthananticipated clients.)

G. Summer Programs

Chicago and Cook County retmplemented SPEDY programs first designed before YEDPA

was created. Rockford used SPEDY to introduce a new focus on education. .Perhaps

for this reason, Rockford was the single prime sponsor to find planning for SPEDY

a chore, cominas it did just as YEDPA programs were underway. A Chicago youth

planner remarked, however, that the grant application package ("a bugger") was sent

Lmuch too late -- in May -- and that; had they delayed planning until its _arrival,

they could'not have got SPEDY together.

392

,

al

4
-22-

Chicago's SPEDY is a five-year-old program which, in 1978, serNed 46,000

participants -- and still turned others away. In their effort to create as many

4

%jobs as possi-ble, Chicago planned a nine-Week program which-provided twenty or twenty-five houAkjf weekly work to participants aged fifteen or less and th9s

sixteen to twenty-one, respectively. In contrast, Cook County provided all

*participants ten weeks of twenty-five7hobr a week employment, reaching 78 percent

of its -pl.anned--enrol-1-ment -Chi-caw-enrol-Ted- H9- percent of its

Its experience with YEDPA,taught Rockford to expect a sizeable proportion

of fourteen-and fifteen-year-old rarticipants. Thus the 1978 SPEDY plan introduced the scheme which wouldbe repeated in FY 1979 YETP planning,-viz., a program segmented by age of participants. Thus, fourteen = and fifteen-year-old

participants were enrolled in one distinct SPEDY, while those sixteen and beyond

were offered choices, in a quite different program. The excess applicants, it may

I be noted, were assigned to the-YCCIP project. The link betwten the two programs.

was the ty given projects 'which promised academic_- or work-experience credit. 4)

Programs, for the younger kids scheauled either twenty hours per week for eight

weeks or a total of 'two to four days per summer for each participant. Older

yr. applicants were offered choices between tiaining-or work experience; activities

within those categories might occupy fifteen to thirty weekly hours for nine to A- ten weeks. 131. percent of planned enrollment was achieved.

Generally, YCCIP, YETP, and SPEDY jobs are much alike in any given prime

sponsorship; it is the exceptions that are of interest. Lots of kids applied

gallons of paint to public buildings and equipment this summer, regardless of

"program assignment. 'Others were given novel experiences, partly because of their

own special nature. Also, the constraints imposed by LEAs seem relaxed during

the .Summer

or V 393 /
- 23 -

Rockford, for example, funded A Very Special.Arts Fair under SPEDY. At}

participants were educlable mentally handicapped high-school students, soma of

whom are pupils of the progrAl director during the school term. it is in summer,

that Mr. McKenzie can concentrate, as he prefers, 'on building the self-esteem.--

and hence, the eloyability -- of these youngsters. ,The program, which culminates

in a performance and art show, is divided between art work and therapeutic exercise.

146vift-betWeen an inner and -outer circle of oartfelpants'and staff, kids exper?ence

themselves as actors and audience and learn thereby that observers can be a source

of support rather than shame. The tWo7hour show is a skillful blend of skits

Which are professiOnalized by the addition of local talent"and creative staff to

thecast. Moreover, the presence of 'staff onstage continues the familiar pdttern

of thevcircles. The performance, received enthusiastically by its large audience,

established the truth of the lesson. The program was such a success that one

observer would not believe that these _kids were actually, retarded.

. A Chicago SPEDY program, operated through-the Board of Education, taught(filmmaking. Eprolltes very obviously enjoyed the'opportuhity to appear brore a camera.

In one scene, for instance, a slight girl stuffs a large boy into a carton. The

next frame, shot from the Sidewalk, focuses first on the windo of the room, next

on an ancient crone coming along the walk. The carton teeters on the windowsill,

'dropping over just as the woman IZa?§es. This kind of thing is a lot of.fun. It

is also probably at least as instructive as, say, serving as a bicycle security v

guard in the park. 'The program uses school equipment and its "success is attributed

to the teacher who directs it. When we asked why the project was offered only in

the summer, we were told that when school it in session, the facilities are the , province of a less-creative teacher.

-\ 30
I

-24--

If they exist, we did not find comparable programs in,Cook County, where the

prime sporger emphasized work experience. Yet we did notice there that definition

4

of a successful experience is elusive. Participants in two different landscaping

projects, example, differed markedly in their interest in the work. Those who

grformed maintenance chores *a school. were demonstrably lesS task invblved than

J

those w4p planted.gardensifor elderly neighbors. The second project more nearly

co'rres nds with the two cited in Rockford and Chicago, i.e., participants create

some -mg which, but for them, would not exist.

An Ob'servation about the supervisor's role,ts" also in order, Some inherently

dull jobs ("ashing 3Q0 school desks"), supervised by talenteda Tts, appear ,to

offer interpersona l benefits which cannot be derived from work-whicommands the

participants' full attention. A Jot of affectionate bantering and aduTt'approvar-

\

l' can substitute for skil'acquisition for kids who are often , A: unaccustomed to k warm

- Pk,- reception. One Rockford SPE DY participant wrote to hts supervisor: "I would

like to spend more'time with you." Another, in contrast, wanted to "get remainder

of welding skills" while one felt "that"rve gtitten endhgh training for a better

job." There are other job-related benefits over which a s pervisor has some con- -

trol. A YETP enrollee learned, for example,"ou get docked for being even two

minutes late," and another learned "how black and white feel in general." It is

hard to say that one benefit better contributes to the quality of an experience

than another.

Prime s

\.

ors' programmatic links between YEDPA and SPEDY differ more lion

paper than in fact, it would seem. 1T1ost Chicago YCCIP and YETP participants move

into SPEDY for the summer): As a CETA staff member commented, however, "They don't.

11, switch programs. It's just a different pot." FY 1978 salvage money, created by

. late start-up, kept some, kids nominally in YETP and YCCIP. The other two prime

sponiOrs essentially followed the same pattern, thoug h they funded it from three

3.90
/

\c )(

- 25 - 4.

, .. pots. ,The Most simple description-of each prime sponsor's SPEDY is this;

>

I ,

4 - Cook County's spEp was their YCCIP; - * - Rockford's SPEDY included soMe_of their YCCIP with more of their YETP;

N ( . - Chicago reversed Rockford's mix'; and,

- Rockford and Chicago addecprojects to which there is some LEA

obstacle°during other months of the-year.

II. Some Different Issues and Iterpretations

Some issues not discussed previously and.of no apparent interest to DOL are

nevertheless noteworthy.

. ( . The CETA Hotseat - We have been struck by the, extent to which prime sponsors

have become the focus of criticism from subcontractors, participants, and the

community.

1 -The level of this criticism has .not rlached the1 point at which it

mpedes the delivery of services in a major way.,But it could represent-a serious s Problem in the future. , q

Of the different reasons for criticism, one i siather unjustified -- and,

in fact, incorrectable from the sponsors' perspective. Prime sponsors are taking

.heat for implementing changes or procedure's required by federal, regul5tions and

/ interpretations thereto. CBOs and LEAs don't distinguish between the ultimate

source of a constraint and wha/ t they may view as an arbitrary decision of the'

4(

prime sponsor. They\direct criticisms at the agency with which they deal.

In Cook County one contractor was deeply concerned aboUt the pressure to

begin its program all too quickly. The CBO spokesman directed his criticism at

the prime Sponsor, not at'the feds who were-the source of the pressure. He

thought the prime sponsor understood neither that it requires six months to plan

a project nor thlt total enrollment cannot be reached on the first day of a program.

(... -i

1 According to Chicago's Mayor Bilandic investigation" is the 6Onsequence

of being "positive"; and "in-the evaluation of prOgrams such as this, everyone is

expecIted to have a grade of,100%." (Address to DOt SPEDY Conference, Chicago, -

October 1978)

393\ 0 \
26 -

A school adminiltrator said tht if the programs did not provide a necessary

service, they would pull out, exhausted by. "two-and-a-half tons If Picayunish bull--."

*. In Chicago, a private employer thought she would have neighborhood youths,,,as

participants, but "they send me these kids from the ghetto."

Understanding The Private 'Sector - It is also apparent to us that the question

of private-sector involVement,in YEDPA needs to be reconsidered. The most success-

,. ful private employment program exists In Chicago where, by agreement, better

students are sent for employers*to interview. One prestigious Chicago firm weeded

out those applicants who were ill-groomed or seemed indifferent about work.. Cook

Countkand Rockford either did not want to cream applicants or never thought of the

possibility. In both jurisdictions there is serious dissillusionment with the

4 . validity of the concept of private-sector involvement.

Where creaming Occurred (certainly in Chicago), we have the impression that

thete kids would have got jobs anyway. At least that is the judgement of the

employers we intervievied; the majority would employ their YETP enrollees ,outside,

the rp.rogram.

Perhaps it is time to reconsider private-sector involvement, not because

firms don't understand YEDPA, but because YEDPA doesn't understand firms. lin-

. questionably kids are learning something in private-sector jobs. Employers,

however, are being subsidized even more SD. The right way.to blend the private

sector's interests in productive workers with YEDPA's interest in private-sector

jobs is to shorten the duration of the subsidized employment. If a worker is

attractive to industry in his own right, then why not permit the worker to take

the job. This will leave a yacancy for another enrollee, perhaps. one not as appealing to industry as the first.

Of course there are problems with this proposal. Much more job development

and monitorint would be required. Also we would have to make sure that employers

did not try t entice kids to drop out of school, a problem extant in Chicago,

39,'
- 27 -

.according ,to a Board spokesman. Notwithstanding these considerations, it may be

time to rethink the matter of private7sector participation, especially in light

of the new initiatives for the private sector in CETA geierally.

Coping With YEDPA - It often happens that actors at different levels of

'.4a sponsorship are restricted'from doing eggctly what they want to do. Any program,

`Thaturally, throws up obstacles which constrain preferrecrbehavi

Nvetheless, one of the interesting things at all leVels oranalysis is

that one can find examples of coping, of people acIieving their own ends in in-

. direct ways -- sometimes because of creative behavior and sometimes just by

happenstance. I

Consider one Chicago employer's desire to pay wages in FY 1975 as he did

the previous year, and to-gilf his particapants a raise. A simple system has been

devised whereby the employer's payrol\ includes the kids (at $3.15 per hour) and

they sign their IBES allowance checks back to the employer -- and The Mayor's

Office of Manpower is obligedto pay the IBES for the service.

In Rockford, where academic credit has been/a Ahorny issue, the youth direct5r

.h ifound a unique source: the adultevening school. The evening division of the

public schools will certify, work-experience credit which 4s transferable to day'

programs, where credit-ia strictly the province of the cooperative teachers -- whose

rates are prohibitive for CETA. T. One Cook County school superintendent decided that the prime sponsor's $3.50

per hour rate for participant.supervisors%ould not satisfy the requirements of

one college student -- so they paid him $7.50 (which may be news to the County).

In another school, wage raiseswhad been,planned to reward participant progress.

Theicounty urged that this scheme be abandoned, inasmuch as the new minimum wage

rate will make it very costly. So the school, ever eager to establish variance

among students, will .adjust wages by changing the number of weekly hours to be

worked by participants.

3 9 a
- 28 -

4.The point is that there is a difference between formal and al accounts

Of programs. The formal accounts do not suggest the tremendOus amount of coping,

of making the best of circumstances, that goes on. These solutions are not

reflected in quantitative measures at the national level, or even at the local

level. There are, in short, limits to structure and control.

As kockford's,yough director put,tt' "We have the first opportunity in a

:long time to really do something, and whether the regulations give the right

direction to ft or not, we can learn to live with what we've got."

A

e"

8.

() \34.--

../
Youth Evaluation Prdiect

Third Interim Report: November1, 1978

Submitted to

National Council on Employment Policy

v.-

November 1978

0

ti by

MC, Inc.

Chapel Hill, N.C.

t400

4

vY
f.

INTRODUCTION:

In this third interim report, we have chosen to present our

findings under a few major headings. .Hopefully, the report will cov,

major points rai r d by the council as well as. summarize the results d

of fresh visits to e four North Cirakina program sites. It seems to

us that at this point in the study, emphasis should be placed on the

major advances being made by the prime sponsors and significant problems

standing-in the way of further progressz)

Accordingly, we have organized the report in four sections. The

first section discusses only the summer program ('SPEDY) as it is a

separate component of youth programming in these priMe sponsorships as

elsewhere in the country,'and will,be,accounted for in detail only in

.this report.

The second section takes a backward look at the first year's op7

eratibn of YEDPA programs 14the four prime sponsorships and discusses

planning changes -- where

The third section'is

problems and discuss them

The fourth cd-fipal

kind of information being

and a summary of training

Fiscal 1978.

appropriate - for Fiscal 1979.

an effort to isolate major adva6ces and major

in some detail in the form of a summary.

section presents,a tabularized look at the

sought by the prime sponsors in this study,

categories and'client characteristics f2,1"

v .

f

4 01
-2-

Z. SPEDY

The Summer Program for Economically Disadvantaged Youth showed

,a profile in the four NOrth Carolina prime sponsorships trot, unlike . that exposed by national studies. SPEDY was swift, reasonably efficiemt, largely unimaginative, and lightly flawed in terms of its

targeting.

A total of 11,850 youth wore served by SPEDY in the Durham- r

Orange consortium, the city of Charlotte, Alamance unty, and the

-

. 0 . North Carolina balance of state. The y uth were employed almost

entirelyk(in public sector jobs, altho gh the jobs did offer a wide

range of learning opportunities. et. The programs were largely black and headily concentrated on in-school youth, however. In Durham-Orange, of the 769 SPEDY clien s,

only 44 were recorded as dropputs. The performance here contrasted

with YCCIP ancnETP programs in which over 50 per gent-of the clients

were dropouts. Typically, enrollment applications for SPEDY are

'distributed through the schools and dropouts are "screened out" of

the program.

We_1$411 distuss)the problet of linkages between CETA and the

schools more thoroughly in SeCtion IV: As far as SEEDY is concerned,

however, prOblems of targeting are clearly related to the haste

verwith

07:4 which the program is mounted each year and to the lingering aura of

income maintenance surrounding the program.

In 4Alamat ce, for instance, the prime sponsor saw itself with a

very simple mission: "Keeping,'them off the street,-and putting tgbney

4

9

xf
110 11,,t -3-

a. in their pockets." Given this kind of goal', it is not surprising that

' the jobs were routine -- school caretaking, child care, and social

service. aide work.. Here, youths worked fin hours'a day at the standard nimum wage of $2.65 an hour.

In the balance-of-state, however, jobs w re far more varied and

an interesting target concentration emerged. lie BOS prime served,

10,570 participants, concentrating heavily on the 14-15 year old range.

The main reason for this concentration was, the state's recently

enacted mandatory competency test, which is now required in order to

gain a high school diploMa. The North'Caiolina Department of Public /7

Instruction determined that incompetency in English andmathematics

is.a major disability ca all too/Many of the state's high school

graduates. Accordingly, the SPEDY program for 60S offered yodth

remedial education and training in testing prepaTedness.

Specific types of work performed included working in child

day cafe centers, assisting in libraries., construction Vofk on buil-

.. dings and in locaPhousing projects, landsciping work, development of

nature trails and campsites, replanting timber areas as forestry aides,

clerical work, nutrition, and assisting in hospitals. It9 .

. - Durham-Orange served gl-fIrd/parils. There was no vocational

or

/ exploration in this program; however, the.sponsor did Conduct a goOit- ;

occupational information component. This sponsor also used the assignment of c4ients to various public- non-profit agencies as a means,of-

. putting yodth to work quickly. InDurham-Orange,i however, the im-

, balance between white and non-white participants was most sharp,4114th

only 19 whites among the 750 )articipants.

4

403

I
R SPEDY.in Charlotte suffered from difficulties in reaching the

total planned participation. Charlotte had 'planned to serve. 1,779 but

never got above-82 per cent of planned enrollment level.

Difficulties experienced by this sponsor wereye/ealing. Prob-

. lems developed at first with they effort to achieve "meaningful giork

.,

., WI good sfipervision." An insufficient number of sites were found

where this criterion could be achieved. Even after some 100 sites

were rejected, a newspaper reporter was able to find a number of

. sites ',there youth were "loafing." - The prime sponsor continued to weeds,out these sites, probably

0,

to the benefit of (he -youth served, although Clearly at the:same

5 time to its own disadvantage numerically. Because of the hast

With which the program was mounted, there were4few "alternate"

# sites, and it was thus difficult to sw tch youth from a rejected

site'to another more suitable one.

The overall experience convinced planners in'Charlotte of the

ho

°

adVantage of year-round planning for SPEDY. -In consequence,,the summer

program has been integrated into overall..youth planning there. ,

' It would be amiStake,-we think, to assume tht the problemt

that surfaced in Charlotte did not occur elsewhere. In the balance

N,

of-state prime sponsorship, for instance, distances between work-,

sites across the state made monitoring diffidult. What wai learned

in Charlotte was the result of better monitoring, however it reflected

on the city's SPEDY plan.

.4. 4u

V
-

I

We saw few clear cases of linkage between the new youth programs

(YEDPA) and the ongoing SPEDY program. Where linkages did .occur

however,'thezjay have boded_well forthe future of youth programming.

Ironically, these linkages often involved missed communication between CETA and the schob). systems -- a subject we will pursue later

in this report.

Where the linkages were-successful, as in the instance of a policy

determination for the balance-of-qtate prime sponsorgto pursue early

literacy training for SPEDY participants, the way tb integration of

. CETA training with-ongoing educational programs seems clear,-and the

omens hopeful;

e'

a- I

a

405

I
0 -6-

II. A Look Over the &ulder and a Look Ahead

In view of the perceived temporary nature of the Youth Employment Demonstration Projects Act, it should not be considered surprising

that planning for programs at the local level is still -- in a word --

0 tentative.

It may be the YEDPA is only "temporarily temporary," and that

most prime sponsors expect money for youth programs to cntinue to

f;i9w from Washington: All the same, the work under th4s Act has

--------prone*Led-so tar under the guise of, response to an emergency, much

as our continuing venture into the area of publi6 service employment.

. , Until a more permanent framework is provided for youth programming

1 as public policy, we should expect local planners merely to react

g

to changing national imperatives rather thap to establish policy-on

their own.

- All this ip,prelude to our observation that -- in four tiqrth . Carolina sites.at. least --*a minimum of reflection on the experience

of the first year of'YEDPA has resulted'in a minimum of change in

planning style and progr5mppg content for YEDPA in Fiscal 1979.

It would not be air to say that the approach was "business as usual."

At the same Unit, few searching reconsiderations have been uncovered

in this littlesstut. Perhaps the best way to describe what has hap-i

pened would -be to-adopt the phrasing of one of our researchers why

has written that planning for the Year II involves ":a modicum of ad-,

justment coupled with A certain optimism that things will go better

with a car's experience under the belt.",.. 0

, G
_7_

Relatively major changes were made in Charlotte, Where the prime

sponsor had difficulty spending out its allocation as a result of a

, failure to anticipate recruiting and dropout problems experienced

through subcontractors.

"We felt we had to maketwo kinds of changes," a planner told

us. "Oe had ter-find ways of developing closer and better communication with the vendors. And we had to make the vendors' responsible

for doing theii jobs better -- in such_a way 'that we would know at

O

the earliest opportunity when problems were surfacing."

To attack the first problem, the priie sponsor re-organized its

supervisory scheme. Where as many as four individuals were responsible for various aspects of the work done by YCCIP and YEXP sub-

/ contractors, supervision was re- aligned to put, each subcontractor

one-on-one with a single CETA prime. sponsor spokesman. No ItETA

staff member now has more than two subcontractors under his/her

wing, but one staff member is fully responsible for the, total per-

,\-iformance of each subcontractor.. Not only does this simple change

of supervisory style promise more efficiency at the prime sponsor

level, but the subcontractors seem to like it much better. "For the

first time," we were told, "the vendors feel that they have-a sympathetic ear up here."

The second problem is being aftacked with a 'series of monitoring

V

tools, including a detailed, monthly reporting system that involves

some factual case studies of youth as well as cumulative and monthly

A numerical reportage. The Charlotte prime sponsor decidid to retain

407

AO,

ON,
(

4

41-1. the same vendors with the exception of one YCCIP subcontractor which.

,was dropped, leaving all of the modest funding for this Rrogyam in.

the hands of /one other subcontractor. ,"We had a pe

, ogram review of /

.- . all of the vendois," a prime sponsor spokesperson said, "and they

N,14, . -' V

were equally bad -- but then 'we weren't so hot last year.ourselves."

This attitude lay unspoken behind the actions of other North

Carolina prime sponsors. They considered that the year was a learn-,

1,=z ing,exPerience for them as well is for their subcontractors. Generally,

. they were willing to.chalk up program shortfalls to efitOkience and to I. 4. .... give the subcontractors a second chance. 4

j .?"! __,-- ome lessoni wire- Learned. One of the0Cnarlotte_subcontrictors -

't.- .i . , ..., A ,. . "tried to do it all" during the first year, utilizing a plat) that

.4.01 combined work. expedience, vocational explorion, tutoring, and sev- -...........

' .0., ,. eral other ,tAgining.elements. The attempt to do too. much with too

little preparation predictably flopped. "We didn't try to tell them

that in the beginning," a prime sponsor spokesperson.notedl "we let

them learn from experience."

It is worth observing that the subcontractor in question was

fp,

a CBO with good contacts in the community, a creditable track record .

fh employment training, but with no .recent program experl.ence.'

The relatively new CETA PSE and youth programS have brought many

CBO's back into the employment And training field. Some,have had

to take time to readjust to a long unaccilstomed,role.

. Charlotte's biggest learnfg from the first year of YEDPA pro=

bat)* lies the a of admilistrative outlay. The prime adopt43

*
-9-

a policy of trying to get the greatestAamount of money-to_the programs, reserving only four percent for administrative expenses.

While this policy seemed commendable on the surface, it provell less

than satisfactory in practice. Programs could not be planned ade-

. quatelor monitored effectively with so little money being usld

for administration. Too often -- the prime sponsor felt -- the youths

for whom the increased program otitLelys were intended were not really

benafiteing.,

AS i result, under the Fiscal 1979 plan, Charlotte expects to

provide better service to its target population throughgtighter

program control and increased contact with program participants. At or

the same time, its administrative'expense figure will probably in-

. crease from four to eight or ten per cent of its total allocation. $ oF

Other prime sponsors im this study have adopted more modest

changes in looking over performance for the past year and making

plans for the second year of YEDPA. In Alamance, there is an increased effort-1Z create'"good" jibs rather than what are seen as

potentially run-of-the-mill jobs, s ch as school custodians and

groundskeepers. Alamance is also using for-the first time feed-.

back from worksite,bupervisors in its evaluation system. This information is collected by the youth coordinator who acts as a kind

of "super counselor" for the program.

Easily the biggest change in Alamance's program involves a

decision to increase greatly the-dhare of its youth program allocation going to the local 4cation agency. The LEA share for

4 01,9

4
°

-10-

FiscA-1979 shows an increase from 22 1/2 to 70 percent as a result

of adding two new target groups -111.high school, students enrolled

in vocational education and.high school studints who are unemployed.

Evaluation and monitoring methods in Durham-Orange, in the

past consisting of routine multiple choice form returns, are now get- . ting a claer look, with stiffer reporting requirements for, subcontractors.

Perhaps the most challenging policy development turned yip in

this. study for the first year is the balance-of-state decision to

place a heavy emphasis on the 14- and 15- year -old youths in need of

remedial English and mathematics work. This is in every sense an

example of local policy setting, a direct response to a felt need

on the part of the Department Of Public Instiuction to prepare

youths for the competency tests required for a high school diploma.

Yet, while the linkage is a most interesting one, deserving

of fUrther study for our final report, the effort will hSve to overcome a set of issues and problems that we will discuss in more detail

in the next section of this report.

f

if
11-

III. Issues and Problems

Fat.and away the most complex issue that has appeared in this

study of the'first year's workings of the Youth Employment and

Demonstration, Projects Act in four North Crolina prime sponsor-.

ships is that CETA and the schools.

Clearly, the greatest progress to be marked'in connection with

these new, "second generation" youth programs involves linkages established between the CETA training arm of local governme;l'and-the local

education agencies. In Charlotte, both school and CETA offiCials

have 'talked in glowing terms of the potential for. the first real "employability" plan for students who can now be steered from dropping

out of school to a course of increasingly vocational-relevant study,

leading both to a high school diploma and further' training for a

job with a future.

'SE "For the first time," a veteran vocational educationeinstructor

in the Charlotte school system told us, "we're seeing a direct,,

unbroken link between a youth in school who is not going to college- .4 -Jand the job he can be trained to get and keep." .1r J

But while the potential is clearly there, efforts so far indicate severe problems that will have to be overcome if these optimal

results are to be obtained. In fact', it is argti*ble that unless

action is taken to bring to bear national initiatives already taken

on state and local policy, more harm than good may be done in, the

long run.
-12

The problems seem to be of two orders, although it is not certain

to what degree they overlap. Of one order is the scheduling prOblem.

The fiscal year timetable under which CETA programs operate does not

square with the academic year.= Too often CETA'programs are being

cranked up after the school year has begun. One result of this is

a certain amount of classroom disruption.

Under optimal conditions of trust and mutual derstanding this

problem might be manageable. Unfortunately, a look at a number of

programs around the countrItconvinces us that scheduling problems,

while real, are greatly exacerbated by the mutual lack of under-

,. standing of goals exhibited by mid-level educators and CETA state

and loca4. officials.

\

The Durham-Orange prime sponsor, for instance, feels that

the school principals and guidance counselors resent what they per-.

ceive as an overload on their staff Caused by CETA. people "coming

for help."

The resentment seems to take several different forms. The

Durham-Orange prime assisted 25 hifh school se ots in making up

school work at the end of the year as part of iia*Summer program.

The Durham-Orange youth planner.reported that the school principal v.

`resisted the-program as unfair, as providing a "sub,idyit.for learning for

some students while others could not receive the same benefits.

A Here, clearly, the school principal did of perceive the good

the CETA program was doing.' Quite likely, as well, the CETA personnel did not perceive male Problems that might be generated

41 0..
-13-

4

in the school which school officials would have to handle.

In some cases; school officials have indicated_their_unhap_p_iness with dropouts for whom they felt everything possible-tad been

4V

done, being "rescued" by the CETA,pfo rams and paid while resuming

their education. sTo their wayiof thinking these students would be

the very ones most lely to fail the competency test and to require addi4onal ecial help in order to graduate. One North

Carolina principal spoke directly to this subject, complaining to

us that CETA compounds the schools' problems by opening the academic trail once.again to dropouts who have been considered incor-

\

rigibles -- "the very ones that had been kicked of used CETA as

a way to get back in the system."

Whether for these reasons or for others, it has been difficult for CETA representatives around the country to get accurate

information from the schools on high school dropouts. This was a

problem too in Durham-Orange, where written and verbal requests

for this information were noA honored.

The problem is admittedly'complicated in North Carolina by

the competency test issue. The knowledge that every high school

graduate will have to pass a written test in English and mathePic matics makes educators even more reluctant to discuss the awarding

of. academic credit for educationrrelated work experience programs.

Irtrilf2;11y, the.00mpetency test has stimulated more linkages

betweeri,CETA trainers and educe ts in North Carolina, as we have

observed. The balance-of-state prime sponsor is putting its major

410
-14-

\ financial emphasis on 14- and 15-year-olds at the request of the De1 rtmeat-of Public--Ins-cructiort-remain-S---ta he getiiiiiiiiiiiiii,---

whether in thia program CETA will serve as a mere pass-through for

, funds or become a full"-fledged par5er in the development and exe-

. ,cution of an educational-employability plan for secondary school

students.

In short, while top -level agreements have been forged between

,0000

the Depa tment of Labor and the Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare, the "trickle down" process has not taken place, and there

is little real spirit of cooperation -- or even understanding of

mutual goals -- between CETA prime sponsors and their educatiofial

counterparts.

T se factors account in part for to number of dropouts being.

served in YEDPA programs under review in this study in North

'1arolina. Clearly,; concern over competency test results has shifted

emphasis more toward the youths still in school'who have yet to face

this potential barrier to graduation.

. .......... In Durham-Oiange, for instance, Where the dropout rate is among

the highest in the state, only 6 per cent of YEDPA participants are

dropouts. The percentage of female dropouts is even lower, as only

one of four participants in YCCIP -- the primary program for dropouts

are female..

If youth programs in North Carolina are to be gearea to the needs

of dropouts, special,emphasis will have to be placed on this category

of participant.

ti 474

48.
-15-

The same holds true for white participants in these programs.

The first thing that must be recognized in North Carolina is that

black predominance in youth programs is not something new under

YEDPA. While the programs are 90 per cent black presently, they

are no different in this respect from CETA Title f youth efforts.

They are no different in this respect from Neighborhood Youth Corps

programs either.

4 The simple truth is that while jobs.under YEDPA 'are better than

they have been under the older programs, the other program elements --

planning and delivery agents, client groups, etc. -- remain much the.

same. Youth programs in North Carolina are primarily black because

they have always been that way. As long as they contain a heavy

admixture of AFDC/PA clients (a quarter of the total YEDPA enrollment)

they will continue to be black. In fact, if it were not for the pre-.

dominance of single-parent mothers in AFDC, the imbalance in favor

of males over females in LED'''. would be even more pronounced.

It is obvious that programs cannot be all things to all,people.

Place an emphasis on the heavily disadvantaged and welfare cases, and

you will come up with heavily black-oriented programs in a state like

4 North Carolina. Unless special efforts are made_to recruit whites,

the e-tendeAcy of such programs in the South -- if not everywhere --

is to attract more and more an exclusively black clientele.

To make inroads on this process, which does discriminate against

the white poor, a strong, and special effort must be made. In Char-

.lbtre, such an effort has been pledged for Fiscal 1979 -- results

should be worth watching.

41g
-16

"If there are to be changes in the composition of enrollment

in youth programs," one youth planner told'us, "it has to starp,_,

c.) - with a good public relations campaign by the prime sponsor. It's

a well-known fact-that programs 'like these' tare thought of as

black programs, designed specifically for minorities. That attitude

is What has to be changed."

41 G

O
o.

IV. Data

There is not much to say about data collection other ttlan that

some seems to be occurring. All the primes appear to be collecting

numbers; in some instances, these numbers are never used except

when

( it comes to reporting. The numbers are not seriously used

for any planning.or the ;Ake but mainly just for reporting. Here's

. a breakout of.what the four primes are collecting:

Prime

Charlotte

Durham-Orange

ovv..

b

TypeTooeDaxa.Cdalac.00 Reliability and Accuracy

Client-enrollment in- Narrative descriptions

4* formation; total in a case study format

terminations; signifi- merits some close attention.

cant segment data; The gauging of the clients'

fndividualocase stu- successes in the,vario

dies on "quality of componensts.ec s.to also

service deliveryand

participants' progress.

be worth keeping an eye -on.- . 4

Follow-up, termination, The information appears

and new enrollment*data to be both accurate and

are'coIledted. Here,,, reliable:

'1 v` the sponsor appears toa only be collecting that

data needed for federal

reporting.

417

(

O

a

-4.
0

Prime

808 North Caroli1a

L.

Alamance

1.

-18-

Typck Data Collected

Ertollment characteristics data; financial

data on program status;

significant segment

data; planned outcomes

(groups served, terminatioriand placements)

are compared to actual

outcomes.

Characteristics and

enrollment data are

collected for bath

report'and monitoring

purposes.-

418

t Reliability and Accuray

The system seems to be neat,

clean and efficient. The

reliability and agcuiacy are

questionable because the

size of, the BOS operation. . The planner dicated that

they,are h ving problems getz

ting accurate and timely reports

from the field. It seems that

the bottom rung is that the . smaller data Collection efforts are the most trustworthy.

The data-seems- to be reliable

and accurate.

<9.

I p0

t
Qua ra t Quarter 2nd ''arter 3rd, Quarter 4th Quarter

[

YCCIP YETP /YCCIP YETP YCCIP YETP 'YCCIP YETP

Characteristi a

Total clien

(9-30-78)

Male

Female

A., -i. Under 18 yrde . White

Non-white . Econ. ,Disadvantaged

H.S. Dropout

H.S. Graduate

-.....-- H.S. Students

.., Unemployed

Underemployed

, Wither -.,, -Veteran

Ex-offender

,

L i

243

171

72 - ...- 141

65*"I'--''

, 178

183

7197

75

4942

152

1775

14,031'

54 3.1.-.

438

321

117

137

86

i2(/)

391

131

. 12

183

108.

73'

257

12 121

3693

---- ---_

5,087

° 5936

9871

11,332

181

14,906

13,976

1586

162

13,239

3963

7/8

10,346

15

262

4002

- - -- ____

. ,

.

382

18I-s'

14,698

5439

9259

10,698

1322

'13,376

12,581

1321

.. 1701

11,676

4177

821

9700

18

177 3711

----

-___

8560

9962

2525

11,506

11,786 ,, 1122

1543

11,366

3280

. 900

9851

10

137

134 , 118

61

321

247

96

121

165

61

59

262

12

109

AFDC/PA

-Handicapped

Drug Offender

Other

. ..r.

, 75

12 ----

-____

3367

28 ----

.. ----

89

,----

---_ ,

.
,

El 0 00 0 C I+ vi 0 0 01 , of of

...I Sr U EA

0uOU C

CD .ri

. 0

I+ 0.

g 11

ale4

oXW e

r-i

C 01 0 V) vi

t l t 6, U it

4). ....

c00 01

CD I+ C

11

?4 U d

41 0

0 4-10

01

0 ' ) 0 4.10

t SI .5 c0, 0 0.

t

.C., 0

I

'

m

o

,-10

44 6

Ei 0o

14

100

of

i. 1 EA8

41

10 m° SI

40M

-% iOu

C CL) o V) vi

4.1 of 4,

e g

t000 CO

41 41 0

CD 0

0 41 al

0 0

of 1.64

(0 ..-1 0

41 O. 0 0

of' gu

410

tt >4 1st Quarter YCCIP

0 C \ 1 YETP

, I y

2nd Quarter YCCIP 200 15 28 138,6'1 29,01 152, 12 320,3640 YETP

._.-- 825 2,577 100 29 51,290,019 1 298,0;8 60, 84 2,628,891

3rd Quarter YCCIP 256 50 761 $392,621 251,2'9 p2,59 113, 21 840,132;. IF . YETP , 903 13,784 11 0

. 1 508,6 1 38,61 1,547,230

4th Quarter YCCIP 438 256,2'1' 256,291 YETP 801 4,209 76 1,19,280 2 692,1 9 138, 31 4,030,340

)0

a

A.,

_ .

. .

. 9,623,248
I

.

\

IT= YOUTH VALUATION PROJECT.

THIRD INTERIM REPORT

Bonnie Snedeker

Osoro and Associates

Ndvember25, 1978

4

REGION X'

422

%.

o ,
Introduction

The report that fellows is a descriptive assessment of the

implementation, operation, and implications of new youth programs being conducted under YEDPA by four prime sponsors in,Re-

, 'gion X. The prime sponsors/iarticipating in this study are:

Kitsap County, Washington,,Lane County, Oregon, The City of Portland, and Oregon Balance of State. The research focuses on prime

sponsor, MP and YCCIP program activities. This report is the

third in a series of interim research reports prepared for the

National Council on Employment Policy's ,Youth Evaluation Project. The Labor Department funded project will culminate in a

final series of comprehensive casesstudy reports based on rem

search findings in identified sites in each region.

The first interim report, completed in January, 1978,

covered program planning and the early implementation-of youth

programs. The second interim report peAetrated further into

the 'implementation period and discussed prime sponsol4 responses

to the tern principles outlined for YEDPA activities in the Youth

Planning Charter. This report reviews program experience in

fiscal year 1978, analyzes performance, and describes FY 1979

planning processes and changes in youth prsgrammire.

The focus for the third reporting phase was om.performance,

management, and planning issues. The examination and analysis

of these issues require-7a broad view of program operations and

dcisiaa-making processes; consequently, input was solicited _ -largely froth prime sponsor staffs--administrators, planners,

pril)yats,' managers, and information and assessment specialists.

Input from services, delivery staff and, participants was not

emphasized in this reporting phase. However, it is anticipated

that service delivery and participant-related issues will re-

. ceive a more detailed treatment inthe fourth and final phase

of the research.

The soeport is bed on information collected on-site,

interviews with program staffs,' analyses of planning documents

and program materials, and statistical data pi-epared by prime

sponsors in conjunction wit44DOL reporting requirements. Except

423
for quotations as noted, the opinions and observations contained

in the report are those of the author. I appreciated the help

pr4Vided by the following people, who coordinated on-site schedules and served as principal contacts during this phase of the

research:

Kitsap County:

Lane Courty:

l'ortland:

Qregon:

4

Jim Frazier

Lee Beyers

Melinda McDonald

Tip Gallagher

r

40

1-

f
CONTENTS

A. REVIEW OF FY 1978 EXPERIENCE

Targetting

Program Mix

Planned versus Actual Performance

4rp. 1

B. 'SPEDY; FY 1978 PROGRAM p. 14

C. 0'WANNING FOR FY 1979 p. 16

Overview of the Planning Process

LEA Linkages

Changes in Programs

D. MANAGEMENT,, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION

Defining Management Objectives

Data Collection and Reporting Systems

Monitoring

Knowledge Development and Other Assessent

p. 24

425
Note: At the time that this report was written, YBTP/YCCIP

year end reports to the Labor Department from Oregon

Balance of State were not yet available. Quantative

data on participant characteristics, service mix, and

expenditures for the BOS were delayed by problems in the , management information and reporting system. Consequently,

was unabl,gto incorporate statistical data for Oregon

OS into'the tables in the appendix of this report. I was

also unable to arrange visits to any loo.1 subgrantees

in Oregon. As a result, l was reliant, almost entirely - on overview and descriptive information supplied by youth

staff in the Oregon.Manpower Planning Division for an as

sessment of'BOS activities. More complete data should

be available soon, and I anticipate being able to provide

a more complete treatment of Oregon BOS programs in the

fourth reporting phase.

4e

4 2 G

A
°

o

A. REVIEW OF FY =1978 EXPERIENCE

Targeting

A major issue-of national concern is the t getting of

YEDPA resources on economically disadvantaged youtr7i. Py 1978

data show that the prime sponsors studied in Region X were successful in their effortstotarget services on low income youth

populations. (See Tables 1 and 2 in the appendix to this repdrt.)

About 90 percent of the participants enrolled in prime sponsor -2

YETP program in Xitsap County, LanblCountzand Portland came from

families with incomes below°70 percent oA the lower family income

standard. The percentage-ofYETP participants from families with

incomes 70 to 85 percent LFI'varied sfightly from 8.7 percent

(Portland) to 12 percent (Kitsap County). Only one of thesponsors made'use of the flexibility afforded by the Act to enroll

youths from families above 85 percent LPI. In conjunction with

the knowledge development activities of the Oregon Manpower Planning DivisMon, about 10 percent of the balance of state YETP participants were'from non-income eligiblp families.

Economic targetting was a lesser concern under YCCIP, and ' prime sponsor data show more variation in YCCIP enrollment mixes.

In Xitsap County, 100 percent of 7y01978 YCCIP participants were

economically disadvantaged. la Lane County, only 46 percent of

the YCCIP participants came from families below 70 percent LPI;

41 percent came from families at 70 to 85 percent LFI, and 13

percent pf Lane County's YCCIP participants were from homes where

'annual incote exceeded 85 percent of the lower family income standard. Overall, about 70 percent of the youths enroIkod in the

prime sponsors' YCCIP programs were f om economicalAy disadvantaged households.

-Each of,thesponsors has been involved with CETA from its

advent in 1973, and prime sponsor staffs have a,4goosi understand=

ing of the impbrtance of economic criteria in the'targettiag_of

services and Selection of CETA participants. Although specific

criteria vary somewhat by title and program, an emphasis on economic disadvantagement is the general bottom-line for employment

and training strategies-under CETA. This committment to those , at the lowest end of the income scale is preserved for the most

part 'under YEDPA. However, there it some 'evidence that the-vafidity of economic criteria as the major determinant of paiticipa,

tion in youth programs is increasingly being questioned. The increase in resources available for youth servicbs,. thb development

and expansion of linkages with 1,ocal education agencies, and the

emphasis on drop-ouelorevention and substantial career development

rather than on simple income maintenance all seem to increase

pressures to broaden eligibility requirements for youth employment and training services. In general, the view that factors

other than family income should be an important consideration in

determining the need -and potential 'value of program services or

prospective youth participants s most widely expressed in n ime

112
sponsorships where youth systems have been maintained separately

dnd sol4ewhat autonomously from adult serving systems.

NiBeyond the mandatory emphasis 5n economic criteria, there

are a number of factors that influence the mix and characteristics of YBDPAagnigcipants in local prime sponsor programs.

During the pl process, numerical goals are set forenrollment of special sub:-populations or significant seup-nts. Significant segment objectives may reflect concious go-,s Advocated

by advisory councils or other polidy makers and transmitted to

operators* s abasis.for actively prioritizing enrollments, or

they may present a formalized "best guess'! of what the mix of

particip s is likely to be, based on demographic statistics

and past p ogram experience. .The mix of participants in relationship to s ool status, age distribution, residegy'patterns, and

other characteristics is, also influenced heavily by situational

factors such as patterns of demand and response among eligible

populations, types of services and delivery mechanism available,

historical local program emphases, and location of intake facilities.

The significant segments most frequently named by prime

sponbors studied in RegiontX were: offenders, handicapped, and

minorities. For the lbst part, prime sponsors had little difficulty achieving enrollment objectives for significant segments.

Actual enrollment of 150 percent or more of planned levels for

significant segments were not utusua.1. (See Table 9.) But there

is some evidence that_flover-perfofmance" in this area was largely

a result of setting rather modest goals in the plan. For example,

in Oregon Balance of State, b!PD4 designates significant segments

but allows each sub-grantlae to determine A4= own numerical ob..

jectives. Some sub-grantees set enrsllmeentobjectives for 'Hadarities, handicapped, and offenders that are based on the incidence

of these characteristics among the general poloulatj.on rather

than seeking to establish stronger affirmatiire action goals on

,behalf of these groups.

In general, -significant segment objectives appearto represent a formal acknowledgement by pr e sponsors of the existence

among eligible youth populations of su -groups With particularly'

,severebarriers to employment. The n erical objectives tend to

heighten,the consciousness of, service staffs and give those who

.fit within the segments some advantage-in enrollment consideration.

. But significant segment objettives are generally not linked to

specific recruitment tactics or sp'ecially developed service stn.-

tegies. There atel'however; exceptions .such as the paired work

and training project for. trainable mentally retarded youth in

Lane County, and a specialized service component for offenders

that, is also operated by lane County. °.

FY 1918 data shows that,the four prigesponsors did a

.

. . good job of readhing Youthful offenders. Lane County had an

outstanding.record in<this area with 28 percents of its Y2TP

r.

4 90%
3

participan s fitting into the ex-offender category. This performance re acts a historical emphasis on "high risk" youth

'populations and well established linkages with juvenile torrection agencies in Lane County. In Kitsap County, 11 percent of

the YETP participants were offenders, and 21 percent (4 youths)

of the small YCCIP population cameTrom this group. About 14

percent of both the YETP and YCCIP participants in Portland were

offenders.

Handicapped youths constituted a smaller percentage of

of 1EDPA participants. Between 4 and 8 percent of the YETP enrollments in the fauz\prime sponsor areas,. was accounted for by handicapped participantbc Viteran's were not a majdr target group for

TOPA services. Only o e sponsor (Portland) designated veterans

/s a significant ,segment. Less than .5 percent of YETP particits were veterans, and there were no veteran enrollments re- , ported for YCCIP. None of the sponsors studied gave AFDC recipients significant segment status, but the record of service to

this group was good. Participants from families receiving AFDC

or other public assistance accounted for 21 percent of the IMP

population in Kitsap County, 25 percent'in Lane County, and 34

percent in.Portland. AFDC enrollments in YCCIP projects averaged

over 30 percent.

...) The most typical YETP participant was a white, female high

school student between 17 and 18 years old. All prime sponsors

Showed higher enrollment percentages for females (abput 60 percent as compared to 40 percent'for males), but there were more

variations in other characteristics. These variations correspond,

to differences in local programming approach.

.*4._ The majority (57 percent) of Portland's YETP participants

were under 18 years of age. About half were high!gchool students;

the remainder was split almost evenly between higIschool dropouts and high school graduates. Portland's participant mix is

reflective of a CETA system with a pre -YEDPA history of support

for youth activities, strong linkages with the public schools,

and establishipeliverzlicapabilities for serving both in-school

and out-of-sch youth. Porland's enrollment of minorities (42*

percent oof YETP participants were non-white) far exceeds that of

the other three sponsors. Performance in this area reflects both

the urban character of the program and a definite commitment to

affirmative action.

The Kiisap.County YETP program tend-Jd to serve ill'older,

slightly better educated population. Only 27.5-percent of Kitsap's YETP participants were under 18 years old, and 52 percent

were high school graduates. The Kitsap YETP program was largely

an out-of-school effort; hotelier, 27 percent of the YETP grant

was used to augment a (YCCIP-funded) in-school pilot. High school

students accounted for 24 percent of the YETP enrollment, and

another 24 percent were high school drop-outs. Kitsap's record

of minority enrollment (20 percent ,f "MP participants were nonwhite) seems quite good considering the demographics of the area

aa& the small size of the program.

42J

01*

10
Lane'County's youth program emphasis has tended

1to be on

the higher-risk low incOthe population. The Lane County YETP

program had a high rate of service to high school drop guts (29

percent of YETI, enrollment). About half of the YETP participants

were under 18 years old; and less than 12 percent were high school

graduates. Nearly 38 percent of Lain County TP participants

were high school students, and this is the result of new linkages

with local school dlstr stituted under YETP. Minorities

accounted for only abo 15 percent of Lane County's YETP participants. Minorities were not designated a significant segment,

and the County's pop , -tion is largely white.

Earlier FY 1 8 data indicate that over half of the YETI)

participants in Ore on BOS areas'were high school students. A

substantial portio of the remaining YETP enr911ments was from

the high school dro -ou population, and a lesser percentage was

high school graduate In the rural areas of the balance of state,

thereappeanIto_be wide support for more flexibility in,applying

income criteria. A larger portion of YETP participants came from

families with incomes between 70 and 85 percent LFI,than was the

case in the other areas studied.

4

The characteristics of the typical YCCIP TarticiPant were

somewhat different than those of'the YETP'enrollee. The YCCIP

participant was.more likely to be male, under 18, and out of

school. Close to half of the YCCIP paiticipants encompassed by

this study were high school drop-outs. All sponsors reported

difficulty enrolling adequate numbers of females kin YCCIP. This

difficulty is understandable given the physical nature of most

project jobs and the ..preponderance of males among the'high school

drop -out populationl*Which was a major YCCIP target group. For

the most part, prime sponsors gargetted YCCIP,'efforts on out-ofschool youths, although a numb of high school students also

were employed in project jobs. The major exception was Kitsap

County, where YCCIP was designed and conducted as a pilot inschool program in FY 1978.

The majority of both YETP ind YCCIP liarticipants in the

areas studied were reported as "unemployed" prior to enrollment.

-It-is logical that 70 to 95 percent of the YCCIP positions would

be filled by participants from the unemploye'd population; these

were full time (robs made available largely to out-of-school youths.

But there are indications-of discrepancies in reporting the employ -'

ment status of YETP paiticipants., Prime sponsors are confused

about the proper classificatiaa.for high school,jtudents seeking'

Tart time work, and there is evidence that'theaifferent criteria

in classifying employment status for this group.. For example,

Lane County reported 38 percent of YETP ene311ment as coming from

the unemployed and 459 percent as 'other ", while Kitsap County

listed 88 perent as unemployed and only 2'percent as'"other".

\ a

I
9Program Mix

5

There are-a number of-perspectives from which to examine

the mix of employment and training services available to youth

in F1'1978. Assessing the impact of YEDPA on the types and auality of- youth services requires a multi - faceted` approach. A first

consideration is prime sponsor intent and understanding. How

did prime sponsors interpret federal objectives.fpr YEDPA acitia9 vities? How were these objectives reconciled with local objectives and translated into program.strategiesq Then we'must review actual experience. That services were offered in what proportions? How Well did actual experience fit the plan? Statistical data showing' enrollments by major activity and comparing

actual l'vels to planned (see Tables 3 and 4) are helpful in

analyzirg program mix. But federal reporting categories are

rigid and don't account for differences in prime sponsor interpretations and program formats. It is necessary to move beyond

a quantative.analysis and consider what those closest to programs

at the prime sponsor level have to say about their experience

with different activities and funding sources. What programs , and what combinations of service are best fitted to participant

needs and local prime sponsor objectives?

In general, prime sponsors welcomed YETP as an opportunity

to expand and improve youth programming. There were no real

conflicts between local approaches and 'federal intent and objectives for YETP. Alt4ougb. some of the features in the legislation

(such as funding linkages with local education agencies, academi9'

credit for work experience, provisions of transitional services,

etc.) may have necessitated changes in programming, there was,

for the most part, -no philosophical conflict. Most of 4he YETP

provisions were seen as steps in a positive direction for improving youth serving capabilities. The ability of prime sponsors

to plan effectively for YETP activities was enhanced by their basic

approval and support of program objectives, but planning effectiveness was hampered byeother factors. Timelwas a major barrier.

For those-sponsors, like Kitsap County, Lane County, and several

sub-grantees in Oregon BOS,'who were forging:new linkages with

local school districts, time constraints seemed particularly

severe. Beyond the development of LEA agreementst'CETA staffs

tended to focus on two Major objectives during the PT 1978 YETP

pisrrile process: (1 the up-gradihg of work experience activities, and (2) the deve opmant of improved capabilities for providing job orientation, career planning, an d counseling services.

p

the projection of enrollmelat,levels by activity for the

FY 1978 YETP grant application was 42.of a high priority activity.

There was some confusion over DOL Ativity categories. What, for

example, was the exact difference between work experience and

career employment experience? Prime sponsor staffs considered

past enrollment experience, newly planned projects and components,

and desirable prbgram directions, and then made "best guesses"

to plug into the grant applications.' Predicting the YCCIP enrollment mix.was fairly easy. But YETP presented more difficulties;

I

, 431
I

6

. and actual enrollment by activity ofteA deviated substantially

from planned levels.

$4'

Overall, career employment experience accounted for about

36 percent of total FY 1978 YETP enrollment's among the prime

sponsors studied. Individual prime sponsor enrollment levels in

career employment experience varied from over 50 percent (of total

YETP enrollment)_in Oregon BOS tb,22-percent in Kitsap County.

These figures correspond roughly to the prime sponsor,mix of inschool/out-AafT.school activity. Work experience for in-school_

youth (where academic credit is given) was generally categorized

as career empiarent experience, while subsidized jobs'for outof-school youth (however upgraded and enriched with transitional

services) often 'Counted as work experience. ThusAm Kitsap County,

where the YEP focus was largely on out-of-school youth, wprk experience accounted for 65 percent of total YETP enrollment. In

Lane- County and Portland, work xneriend6-enrollments comprised

respectively 28- percent and 19 ercentof YETP enrollment totals.

Together, career employment and ork experience enrollments made

up about 62 percent of total FY 1 78 YETP enrollments among',the

prime sponsors studied.

Classroom training accounted for about 32 percent of total

YETP enrollment among the prime sponsors studied. Classroom'

trt.iningreceived an especially strong emphasis in Portland, where

41 perc*t of the-YETP'participants Were enrolled in this activity.

Vocatioqal training is the preferred Aryice prescription for

.outLof-school par;tici.P4Ots in Portland. "'Then I asked an area

manager in Portland 4:0 vell thid emphasis "fit" with the service

seeking strategies,,of' yOuth,,he said: "Sure, a lot, of kids come

in here looking fb'rqaoney and&work. Some want jobs now. But

when they really understand the system.=-what we can do for them

and what'alternatives are 2,vdillab3,e7-they assally choose some

kind of trpinine;fl, ra 0, - All of the' sponsors were able to'

with work experience for some of the±,o

cipants, and this activity coupling is

tics. (Enrollments by program activist

cent of actual enrollments.) In addit

numbers of high= school drop -4outp inv

?enrolled in YETR work experience. Th

'experience combinjtions often do not

because primp,sponsors generally do

paration activities or pay PTA par ici,.

GED classe

co e classroom training

ut-t school,Y3TP partied in the statisore than 100 perwere substantial

D classes while

room training/work

up in program statistics

crectly sponsor GED preanill-,for time spent in

177\

OJT accounted for only a small ..ercentaBe YETP enrollments. ^Each of the sponsors studied'se ratilex' modest goals' for

.OJT enrollment, but only one'came close t he planned level.

The lagging performance in OJT is seenas a problem by prime sponsors as they each advocate increased activity in the private

sector. In some cases, under-enrollment in OJTIcccured because

staffs were so involved with larger program cep:pone/Its and increased

cage loads that they had little time or energy tb develop appro.,:

e

4 420k.14,
.0.

priate OJT positions. But there are Othei difficulties in successfully operationalizing.OJT for youth participants. "How do

you get a businessman to take an untrained kid on an OJT when

he can get an adult just as easily from the CETA program?" one

counselor asked me. An area manager in Portland said: "OJT

is the hardestlactivity area fat youth programs. Last year, we

just didn't have that many kids who were ready for an OJT placement. And the few who were ready were almost too well-trained

and prepared to justify OJT rather than,, regular unsubsidized

placement." But he added: "Maybe we'll do better this year,

because we have more kids with some program experience who will

be ready for ite

Transitional services were provided to YETP'participants

in tde study sites. But these services were usualily delivered

in conjunction with work experience or classroom training and

were not reported on a seperate enrollment basis in FY 1978.

While YETP was seen as a program that would fit well with

Title I . ctivities and local youth program objectives, YCCIP was

viewed by prime sponsors with more scepticism. The project approach required time and energy consuming front-end work and was

not seen as offering any substantial contribution to youth programming. As one CETA administrator put it: "It was a hassle.

For us, it meant jumping through a lot of hoops, Time was scarce,

but we had to go through the whole RFP number--even thougleno one

was very excited about it and there was very little money involved

4 in comparison to the rest of our youth pr am."

. The response to prime sponsor requests for FY 1978 YCCIP

project proposals was not overwhelming. Some innovative projects,

like the Roseburk solar heating project in Oregon BOS pr the,Kitsap County fisheries project, were proposed and funded. But prime

sponsor staffs generally had little time to. work on project proposals and ended up accepting_the best of what bidders offered--

thnugh in many cases they were far from satisfied. A Portland

youth planner said: "Nobody here had time to work on the development of YCCIP projects. So we had to leave it uT to the agency

staff at the youth service centers. They weren't especially wellequipped to handle it, but we didn't have much choice."

i Most of the YCCIP projects funded by the four prime sponsors involved physical labor and had *angible goals. The constriction of bike trails and home weatherization activities wete

typical examples. Each of the prime sponsors placed planned YCCIP

enrollments in the work experience category, but Portland also

\\\

extablished numeri al goals for simultaneous enrollment in classroom training. Abo t 70 percent of Portland's YCCIP participants

received some classy om training in addition to work experience.

eKitsap County's YCCIPprograd differed from those of the other

sponsors. Projects were designed to provide work-sites for inschool participants. .YCCIP participants in Kitsap completed learningplans and received academic credit for skills gained in parttime project jobs. The Kitsap pilot in-school program, in which

YCCIP played a major funding role, was judged to be a success.
But the prime sponsor was less than pleased .with the lack of f

flexibility in the project mode: "The projects were not bad and

most of the placements worked out okay. But is was hard to fit

project jobs to participant needs. We need the flexibility to

. develop individualized positions; so this year we're funding the -

in- school program with YETP.and Title I dollars."

. When asked to comment on the differenceq between the various

youth programs and to indicate which activities, seemed_ to best

fit participalat'needs, prime sponsor staffs expressed most favorable opinions of YETP/Title I capabilities. Youth services under

Title I and YETP services were delivered on an integrated basis,

and the only-real differende between. the two programs, as one

operator observed, was that "we have a little more leeway in

the economic eligibility criteria under YETP". The comments of a

Lane County staff member summerize the prime, sponsor View of the

YETP/Title I program: '"It's our most comprehensive and ft.erxible

alternative. Vie are able to provide counseling and support services on an individualized basis. We haye no problem coupling

vocational training or other classroom activities xrith job experience. Under Title I and YETP, we are able to help Participants

with longer range career goals rather than just giving them temporary jobs."

_Most sponsors -fund both in-school and out-of-school activities with YETP and Title I. In Portland, where a number of

innovative projects have been established that combine classroom

training with on-the-job experience and career planning, all contracts for special projects are written to combine both YETP and

Title I funds. In this way, Portland is able to maximize use of

the more flexible YETP enrollment criteria in all phases-of the

program. Staffs in Kitsap and Portland spoke favorably of inschool programs that combine work experience with educational

services, career planning; and tr..sitional services.

The SPEDY program is =en as being different from the major

thrust of year-round progt .. strategies, but its approach is

generally considered to be complementary rather than in conflict

with YETP/Title I. "SPEDY is a much larger program. 71e have a

greater number and variety of jobs under SPEDY. But it's set up

i/ on a short term basis, so the jobs tend to be more labor-intensive

and less training oriented:-{'` I was told by a Lane County Program

manager. A youth program analyst in 04Fegon's Manpower Plapning

more mid' --like NYC. I would say that the work experience

DivisiO732 d: 1 "SPEDY has more limited goals, so it tends to be

-ftokctivity in SPEDY is less enrlched than YETP." A Portland area

manger -thought that: "Some of the SPEDY-funded pro4ects, like

Career Exploration are really good. But for the most park, SPEDY

activities are minimal."

The following opi4pions were expressed by prime sponsors

about YCCIP programs:

YCCIP is a lower priority. There are too many constraints,

and it tends to operate apart from the rest of the youth

4 ') A
41,

r

system. It's hard to hire good staff and provide needed

services in a project format.

(Portland)

'We have variable wage 'levels in YCCIP; so it

for youths-to make more money in the project

there is less counseling, career development

supportive services. It's more like'PSE for

(Lane County)

is possible

jobs. But

and other

kids.

YCCIP works pretty well. the RPP process is kind of

difficult, and it's a small program compared to.YETP.

(Oregon ;OS)

It's sometimes to fit' participants into the pioject pot

sittans. And there are transportation oroblems. Being

locked lista project sites reduces our placement flexibility.

(Kitsap County)

Issee YCCIP as a holding stage for out-of-school, out-ofwork kids. I's really in conflict with Dur private sector

and career development goals. The concept of career planning gets lost.

(Portland)

.,- Planned vs. Actual Performance

7 45 Much of the deviation in the planned versus actual performance of FY 1978 YEDPA programs can be accounted for by_a

slower than anticipated start-up of prime sponsor YETP and YCCIP

activities. Lagging enrollments tended to play havoc with prime

sponsor performance in meeting planned levels of expenditures,

positive terminations, and other objectives that tre based on

anticipated enrollments. But the enrollment lag, typically, proved

g to be a blessing in disguise whet prime sponsors were notified

during the foUrth quarter that they should plan for 27 percent

caTry-out in YEDPA .programs.

Lane County, YETP and YCCIP enrollment d)idn't really get

underway until April, 1976. The build-up, whidyr moving slow

ly any way, was deterred 14 a local freeze on Ti 1 I enrollments.

/Lane County staff members say they would have been in real trouble

1

if DOL hadn't instituted the 27 percent carry-out requitement in

June. As it was, they achieved only about 65 per-cent o-f planned

YETP enrollment and were able to ca -out more than sufficient

funds to support early FY 1979 YETP activities. Lane County

had enough YCCIP dollars to re-fund two YCCIP projects in Fy 1979,

t...---.

433

S.
3.0

but they were waiting for FY 1979 money to come down before funding new YCCIP projects.

Oregon BOS reported a slow program .start -up through Spring

of 1978. "We had finally reached, ipo percent of planned enroll

ment levels when the word came down fropDOL about the need for

carry-out. It took all of July and August for us to slow things

dt down. We actually would have spent 'mat our grants if we hadn't

put the damper on." Rather than make transfers to SPEDY, MPD

suggested that sub-grantees freeze YETP enrollment. UPD also

stopped its efforts to encourage_the few .sub- grantees whose enrollments were still lagging sabstaetially behind plan.. Oregon BOS

endejkiith about 25 percent carry-out in -YETP; and MPD was.able

to sigii contracts for all FY 1979 activities except YCCIP projects.

MPD staff reported that they had sufficient money to fund Otto

ber activities but would be in trouble if the -funding delay ex-

'te4ded beyond 30 days.

Kitsap County experienced slight delays in FY 1)73 start446. up. But by the end of-the second quarter, they were .right' on

track with both YETP and -YCCIP enrollments. By the-first-part

fo Summer, they were prepared to spend oust YEDPA money, and they

experienced an "akward" two weeks after receiving notification

from DOL about the carry-out requirement. They hadn't planned

to transfer YETP or YCCIP,participants to 'SPEDY, but they cut off

Y3DPA enrollment_and transferred all who were eligible to the

Summer_program: As a result, they were able to carry-out almost

d*actlathe recommended -2-7-lercent. ""le ,had a bit of a bad trine

over it, but it worked out well in the end", was the youth planner's comment. . "ortland's start-up in,both YETP and YCCIP was very slow.

Enrollment delay was influenced by a,namber of factors. The new

Career Research facility, planned to *ve a substantial number

of FY1,978 YETP participants, required extra, time or operational

planning. Its establishment was further delayed y the _need to

wait for the city ordinance process and to confi final arrangemerits with the community college. By the time t s project, was

ready.to.begin enrolling, SPEDY implemewt'ation wa starting and

things were chaotic at the area offices. Portland out-of-school

youth service, approach requires a rather intensive infusion f

time for new .participant4 j

. Portland emphasizes individual p an-.!

ning, career research.and exploration, and counseling for p ticipant's prier-to enrollment in classroom training or other activities. But YETP implementatiOn coincided with'a freeze on hirAmg

for CETA youth services. "It was almost-impossible for us to

handle new enrollments on a massive scale without any additional

staff", an area manager told me, "Our counselors are all PSE

participants: TlIeVre really good, but there aren't enough to

handle'the'new increases. .7e knew that ge were behind, but nobody wanted to short-change new participants." A goqd deal of

area office staff time was also absorbed by efforts to implement

13G
11

the shift to career employment experience in the high schools.

In addition to the staff freeze and extra work load, YETP and

Title I enrollments also tended to suffer from the preoccupation

add ecurity generated by an imminent reorganization of Portd's CETA programs. FY 1978 enrollments and expenditures were

down for both Title I and YETP, so there was no problem meeting

the 27 percent carry-out requirement.

- Through . - r-spending, slower than planned enrollment

build-up, enrol scent freezes, inter-program transfers, or other

thans, all of the prime sponsors studied were able to meet, or

come close to, the recommended 27 percent carry-out. 'Federal

funding,dlays, consequently, did not intoerrupt FY 1979 startup. Activities for the new year, with the exception of most

YCCIP projects, were funded on schedule.\ Nevertheless, prime

sponsor and LEA staffs were concerned and rather alarmed by both

the "last minutereversal in DOL directives and the evidence

federal funding instability for youth programs.

It is difficult to analyze prime sponsor performance in

meeting planned enrollment objectives for various YETPprogram

activities. The degree of corespondence between actual and planned

enrollment levels in major service components appears to be_more

dependent on the frequency and adroitness of prime sponsor modifications than on the degree of adherrance to original plans.

In general, under-enrollments occureft in all YETP activity categories but tended to be most severe i1p OJT. The striking exception was Kitsap County, where original enrollment objectives were

exceeded for each program activity except transitional serviced.

Lane County%s weakest perfdrmande area was classroom training--T

only 32 percent of Planned enrollment levels were achieved. Oregon was able to exceed most objectives by modifying the YETP plan

to reduce enrollment goals by 20 percent in-each activity area.

FY 1978 termination statistics were available for three

of the prime sponsors. (See Tables 11 and-12.) Performance in

this area is difficult to analyze and compare because planned

termination levels were generally not adjusted in consideration

of under enrollment. As might be expected, total IMP terminations

were considerably below planned levels (as were total_ enrollments).

,However, positive termination rates were slightly lower than

planned for YETP, while non-positive termination rates were considerably higher than anticipated. Consequently, YETP termination

performance seems to be quite poor. The YCCIP picture is even

worse. Positive termination rates for YCCIP tended to be well

below those planned, and non-positive termination rates were considerably higher.

In regard to termination performance, Kitsap County was

a notable exception. Total YETP terminations in Kitsap exceeded

those planned by fOur percent. (Enrollments were 111 percent of

plan). Positive enrollments were 121 percent of plan, and the
12

T.. majority of those who terminated entered unsubsidized employment.

The rr`on-positive terminatio rate for YETP was only 12kpercent,

which was 50 percent below th planned rate. Though fewer of

Kitsap's YCCIP participants en ered unsubsidized employment upon

termination, YCCIP termination performance in Kitsap still fax

outshown that of other sponsors. Positive YCCIP terminations.

were 138 percent of plan, which reflects both over-enrollment

in YCCIP and the unusual nature of Kitsap's program. All of the

YCCIP participants were in- school youth, whic meant an almost

automatic positive termination for those who ompleted the program. Non-positive YCCIP terminations in Kit p, however, were

only 33 percent of the planned level. Only on YCCIP participant

left the program on a non-positive basis.

. Lane Count's termination record was more checkered. If

allowances are made for substantial under-enrollment, the positive termination rat4or YETP was close to plan. However, the

majority of those positively terminated did not enter employment;

they generally fit in the "completed program objectives" or "returned to school" categories. The non-positive termination rate

for YETP was about 35 percent higher than planned id Lane County.

Total terminations for YCCIP in Lane County exceeded the planned

level by 13 percent. But positive terminations were less than

64 percent of the planned level: Only six of the 34 YCCIP participants terminated were reported as entering unsubsidized employment. No non-positive YCCIP terminations were planned in Lane

County, but 15 non-positive terminaN.ons actually occured.

.s Total 12TP terminations in Portland were less than 70 percent of,the planned level, and this is largely accounted for by,

under-enrollment. The positive termination rate vas slightly

below the planned rate, but about 40 percent of those positively

terminated entered Imsubsidized employment. The non-positive

termination rate for YETP exceeded the pl ed rate by.nearly 40

percent. Total YCC? terminations in Portl d were only 61 percent bf the planned. level (once again refle ting under-enrollment).

The :positive termination rate for YCCIP was 20 percent below that

planned; and only 4 participants, of a total 46 terminated from

YCCIP entered unsibsidized employment. The non-positive termination rate for YCCIP was over 50 percent higher than the planned

rate in Portland.

In anlyzing FY 1978 costs and outcomes statistics for the

three prime sponsors, several important observations can be made.

First, there is considerable variation among prime sponsors in

the average costs of serving participants under the two YEDPA

program formats. In general, the closer a sponsor came to reaching

planned enrollment levels,:the lower theYcost per participant

tended. to be. Larger programs tend to be less costly on a per

participant basis. Secondly, YCCIP appears to be a considerably

more 41005 t1y program approach than MP.' This is true in spite

of the fact that fewer career development services are offered

to YCCIP participants. Only 14 percent of all those terminated

4 ')c:
13

from YCCIP Within the study sites were reported as entering un

subsidized jobs. This compares poorly to the 26 percent of YETP

terminees who were able to secure jobs upon program completion;

. and yet, YCCIP dealt primarily with an outofschool population

for whom job placement was likely to be amore critical need.

In school participants Care cheapest to serve because they only

work part time and educational services are provided by the schools.

YCCIP participants generally work fulltime and may receive higher

wages,. But statistics indicate that while YCCIP may be effective

as an income transfer/maintenance effort, it is far from success

ful as d vehicle to help unemployed high school dropouts and other

youths make a successful transition to unsubsidized work. A

further comparison of rudimentary cost indicators is of some in

terest.

Per participant costs for YETP ranged from $751 in 2ort 41

land (which had the largest program) to $1,350 in Kitsap County

(the smallest program effort). Costs per YCCIP participant were

comparable in Portland and Kitsap County-at $1,377 and $1,442 re

spectively. However the cost per YCCIP Qarticipant WOPW aelftreer9:41.1.4

in Lane County was much higher at $'2,29O. In examining costs

per positivs termination, the_divergence between YCCIP and YETP,

wand the divergence between Kitsap County (where positive termi

nation rates were high) and other prime sponsors is more appar

ant. The cost per positive YETP termination in Kitsap County

was $1,638; the costs per positive termination in Portland and

Lane County were $2,015 and $2,220 respectively. These, figures

compare to YCCIP costs per positive termination as follows:

$4,430 in Portland and $5,544 in _Lane County. On the other hand,

the cost Der positive YCCIP termination in Kitsap County was only

$1,522. ZIt should be noted that Kitsap's =IP program is not

strictly comparable as it was an in school effort.), In analyzing

costs per placement (entering employment), the comparisons are

rather staggering. In Kitsap County, the cost per'IETP placement

was a reasonable $2,670--compared to per placement costs of $9,791

and $5,170 in Lane County and Portland respectively. The cost

per YCCIP placement was $6,850 in Kitsap County, compared to

rather astounding $17,556 and $25.,474 costs placement

in lade County and Portland respectively.

'411: qv%

4
14

B./SPEDY: FY 1978 PROGRAM

A good deal of enthusiam was expressed for the efforts

conducted by Prime sponsors under SPEDY in the Summer of 1978.

SPEDY Ilas not tended to be the favorite program of CETA youth

staffs; it-is often criticized for being short term and too

crisis oriented. However, this year many improvements were instituted, with apparently favorable results. The upgraded results were attributed to earlier plad#ng starts and the expansion of capabilities and linkages that might be expected after

'a aumber'of years of Summer program experience.

Performance statistics vaij.date the favorable evalUations

given to the SPEDY program by CETA youth staffs. (See Tables

_14 and 15.) Prime sponsors were able to exceed planned SPEDY

objectives in most cases. Positive termination rates were high

(most terminees are not expected to achieve job placement upon

completion), and non-positive terminations were generally below

planned levels. .Prime sponsor performance in meeting enrollment

objectives for significant segments (minorities, offenders, and

handicapped) was very good.

Kitsan Youth Plantner, Jim F14.zier, said: "SPEDY was dynamite this years We tried to gear it more toward training objectives. We set maximums of 10 to encourage fewer participants at

each job site. We used training plans for SPEDY participants.

CAP counselors used the plans in monitoring, and 15 were approved

by high ,schools for academic credit. Lots of occupational information was provided. We sponsored-career awareness classes at

the community college and other special activities. The youth

council was even able to get out and monitor work sites."

Lane County also reported "the most successful SPEDY program to date". "We served mor youth than planned, were able

to do more rural outreach, andihad a greater diversity of projects

and jobs than ever before. We also had a strong 'special needs'

component and we ''e able to serve handicapped kids on the buddy

system in specially developed work sites. We were able to tap

into some community development funds. Each year we have a special project to pnerinfte a publication on some phase of Lane County

heritage. This year's effort we. particularly good."

Portland's former SPEDY manager said: "We started,,getting

ready early this year and had more planning time than ever before.

There were more projects and more agencgS involved than in'prvious years.' We did a certain mount of experimentation. Some

things worked out, and some didn't." . The youth analyst at Oregon's Manpower Planning Divisj.on

expressed a more qualified approval of SPEDY: "For the most part,

SPEDY is handled by-the same operators in the sub-grantee areas.

The process is not highly innovative; but it goes smoothly, and

440
ti

15

a SPEDY does provide more flexibility and options for youth services."

Prime sponsor staffs had a number of different 'views on

the linkages between SPEDY and year-round program efforts and

the value of their mutual effects: "Being able to transfer YETP

and YCCIP participants to SPEDY saved our necks in Kifsap County.

All our transfers were 'paper' only--everybody kept the same

counselor, learning plan, and job. Year-round participants had

access to special summer services like the employment fair and

community college career awareness classes. We had to shut SPEDY

dc.in when we made the paper tansfers so we probably served fewer

kids than we otherwise might have. But the tools we used to

improve SPEDY came out of our year-roUnd programs. The two programs interacted in a highly complementary way. SPEDY proved to

be a great device for developing lists of low income youth that

the schools can use in recruitment and eligibility screening for

the year-round program."

In Lane County, no YCCIP participants were transferred

to the SPEDY program. A number of YETP participants were transferrednot because there was any problem with carry-out, but

because youth staff wanted to give them "first pick" of the SPEDY

pool of over 800 jobs. Between-30 and 40.SPEDY transfers were

made in order to give YETP training participants an opportunity

to pick up some work experience. There were problems because

SPEDY wages were lower, in some cases, than YETP, and the staff

was not prepared to set up simultaneous enrollments. (In the

past; participants had been terminated before transfer to other

programs.) Youth staff members said thaA.SPEDY had the "advantage"

of operating on a basis'somewhat independent of the rest of youth

services, which through out the Summer were beset by the turmoils

of reorganization. As the FY 1978 SPEDY tanager was brought

back to the program to oversee YETP in-school activity, it is

expected that the year-round program will benefit from the good

publicity, new work-sites and expanded linkages developed during

the Summer under SPEDY. Lane'County schools were more involved

in SPEDY this4summer, which was A result of new linkages developed

under YETP.

Several Portland area staff members felt that: '"SPEDY was

somewhat dipruptiye". A number ot explanations followed. "There

are massive( administrative pressures under SPEDY. It comes into

the area offices and tends to divert activity away from year-round

goals. For example, we were\played in operationalyzing our

career research facility, which meant that we came up against

SPEDY enrollment. It's harder to recruit for a career development

activity when 'free jobs' are floating around." ',Our year-round

program trys to educate youth 421 regard, to the real world of

work. SPEDY is especially reptlasentative of reality."

(dt

4 41
16

4 C. PLANNING! FOR FY 1979

Over-View of the Planning Process

The deadlines for Completing FY 1979 YETP /YCCIP grant applications werenot really timed to promote substrutial planning.

Prime sponsor youth staffs were ealsain busy with large scale SPEDY

operations and were struggling to modify FY 1978 YEDPA grants and

insure adequate,carry-out. Most of the planners felt that there

had no been enough - experience with the new program (less than 4

month n some cases)" to justify considerar on of major nolicy or

program changes. In addition, -h the p a.e sRonsors, Portland

and Lane County, were in the mid reorganizations

of their entire CETA'sys.tems. Sta shortages, lack of mangerial

capabilities, and the insecurities of an unknown future for youth

systems mitigated against broad gauge consideration of YETP plan-

, ring issues. Because of their relatively small size and rather

rigid format, YCCIP projects wgre not a major policyconcarn; but

they'd take up a substantial amount of planning time, as they

requiredo full scale RFP and: proposal review process. The development of Job. Corps agreements in FY 1979 was a new requirement that also took up considerable staff time.

Although none of the prime sponsors studied, except Kitsap,

had the time or incentive to consider substantial program changes

on the basis of policy input from advisory councils, local education agencies, or others; youth planners acknowledged that there

was some planning advantage' 9ver the previous year. Planning

intput_was solicited heavily from program managers and operators,

who after months of YETP experience had a much better "feel" for

operational indicators. Although, for the most part, only small

changes and, improvements were incorporated into the plan, youthplannerd had a much easier time developing realistic numerical

objectives to plug into the grant application. Prime sponsors

were all united in their concerns, that YETP activity be training

oriented.and geared toward private sector placements. And changes,

though minimal, were made with these goals in mind.

Lane County staff characterized FY 1979 efforts as "planning on the rush". Grant applications were not rea4y considered

until late July. Two newly created positiofis, Tit101 and III

Manager, and Youth Planner, remained vacant through out the Summer.

The employment and training advisory committee was being reorganized and there was no youth council. The YETP grant application

was prepared rapidly on a crisis basis with limited.out4de input.

Program objectives remained the same, and youth staff re-tooled

last year's plan on the basid of several months Of program experience. Both a staff review group and an ad hoc committee.made

up of previous ETAC members were established to review and selectYCCIP proposals. Lane County reported a good response to their

reouest for YCCIP proposals;. eleven acceptable proposals were submitted.

4,411ti
17

Portland's YETP .planning process relied heavily on input

from area offices. In FY 1978,-youth planners set numerical planning objectives after meeting with program operators. "These

indicators represented a commitment to somewhat innovative directions-in programming, but they. did not prove to be highly realistic", was one planner's comment. In FY 1979, central office

staff in Portlind's YOuth Services Office were determined to get

realistic input for the grant application coupled with accountability'fran the area offices in fulfilling objectives. Area

managers were responsible for completing their own PPS and BIS

summaries. This was a new effort for the area offices. Cent al

staff members prepared a manual--to aid area managers in plann

for FY 1979. In spite of some problems with accuracy in.computing

projections, the new procedure was considered a success in leading

to a "good YETP plan that we Can all live with". The advisory

council 'was not heavily involved in MP planning. Major employment and training concerns in Portland were focused outside the

youth services area on ambitious plans to link CETA resources and

programming.slrategies with new economic development initiatives.

The YCCIP planning process in Portland proved to be rather

interesting. What started of as a routine RFP process turned into

a 4xeakthrough.ortsorts for the advocates of planning. It began

when thg review dommittee, selected from advisory council member=

ship,; didn't really like any of the five proingIns submitted for

YCCIP. "The idea weren't bad" said one reviewer, "But the proposals Were poorly'written and didn't address themselves to the issues of transition or substantial skill acquisition." With 'the

support of the planning staff, the review' committee rejected all

of the proposals and reopened the RFP process. "This had never

been done before. ,,And the review committee got quite a kick out

of it; it meant that their involvement was not just pro forma but

really did make a differsnce"said the youth planner. It also

, meant trouble, because DOL,had set a deadline date of Augut 21

for YCCIP grant applications. The new RFP de,adline in Portland

was August 31, but they went ahead anyway. Three of the original,

proposals were reworked, one was substantially altered, and a

fifth bidder adopted a' proposal for a waterfront restoration project that had,previously 'been funded under Title I/YETP. The review committee was pleased with the new batch of proposals, and the

Labor Department14 regional office accepted the grant application

late and was able to get it approved "just under the wire".

e In Oregon BOS, sub- grantee agencies are responsible for

completing their awn YET3tervice plans. Youth staff at the Manpower Planning Division sent the "Pirt C's" out to the sub-grantees

for their input into the BOS YETP grant application in mid-July,

which was three weeks before MPD received its own planning materials from DOL. Sub-grantees complained, nonetheless about lack

df time for planning. Manners claimed they did not realize that

they would have to submit new plans. Since theprogram had been

in operation less than 4 months in many areas, the staffs apparently

expected that DOL would simply extend FY 1979 grants. 'MPD treamthe ,process for YCCIP planning, and the state played = strongrole in inlerti;1 gte RFP procet.S.

443r
In Kitsap County, youth planning issues received, substantial attention. The logistics of completing the grant application

were difficult. Staff members were busy with ambitious SPEDY operations, monitoring activities, -and modifications. Ao there

was some trouble getting a handle on changes in the grant appli-7

cation process. Job Corps agreements and the YCCIP RFP process

were extra burdens. The crunch in Kitsap came in turning out the

grant application; but poliO development and'real'planning began

long before the regulations and planning materialS came down from

the LOoor Department. And this process progressed smoothly., After

a partial year of experience, youth planning was easier to conduct.

Education agencies and youth council members were fully briefed.

Performance data were available, and good consensus was established

for decision-making. The youth council. was active in pushing for

a stronger emphasis on private sector placement :and clearer_ob=

jeciives for services to high school drop-outs. The council-a-l4So

used its wer.to reject a staff'proposal tO set up a 70,01 component in th louth program.

LEA Linkages

"Relationships between CETA programs and`local education

agencies continued to progress in positive directions. Although

time'and other constraints tended to mitigate against ft-tailed

input from school district personnel' in FY 1979 planning, the

schools were generally both better informed and more interested

in youth program issues than they had been in FY 1978.

Major changes were not made in the'size or scope Of in-school

uogram efforts, but roles were redefined to some extent and

goals and strategies were better delineated. Slight increases

in the level of resources anortioned to school based activities

are anticipated for Fg979 cialaft'the arum included in the study.

In Lane County, each participating school district develops

its own YETP strategy and signs an individual financial agreement with the prime sponsor for YETP funding. The LEA funding

level in name County remains 22 percent'of the YETP grant, but

more mOn4y will be available in FY 1979 because of the substantial

carry-out. The schools were receptive to CETA goals and considered'new_programmirg ideas, but they got caught in the rushed

planning cycle. School districts had only three weeks to develop

their FY 1979 YETP contracts. Major changes were not possible,

but some improvements are planned. Schools will be placing more

emphasis on transitional services,. including better career information, job seeleing seminars, and.community college classes. This

year the CETA staff is assuming responsibility for enrollment and

certification of in- school participants; the Schools had a difficult time last year dealing with income criteria and enrollment

mechanics.

'Portland reports more CETA dollars going to Portland Public

Sghools in FY 19797than ever before. The relationship between

Y.
19

CETA youth programs and the school district in Portland extends

back before YEDPA enactment,_ and cooperative linkages have been

firmly established. Portland Public Schools has played a major

role in the development and operation of innovative projects like

the successfial Emergency He Repair Project. his year, four

new Title I/YETP funded projects are being operated by the school

district. In accordance with the, non-financial agreement between"

the City and Portland Public Schools, career development plans

will be completed for all in-school participants. Youth staff

attempted to involve each school more substantially in planning

by asking work experience, oordinauors to work with budget projections rather than -slot ocations. However, preoccupation

with CETA reorganization i ues and school district concerns over

a "tax-freeze" proposition tended to put a damper on the development of new ideas. Furthe develoxpments developments in LEA-linked programming

were put off until net ye

Final figures are not yet available on the amount of CETA

'funds allocated to LEA activities in Oregon BOS, but it appears

that as much as 50 percent of YETP funds will be used to support

in-school programs. The climate for new program initiatives was

negatively ffected by educational budget uncertainties related

to Oregon's °position six. One Intermediate School District

in. Coos Bay was so alarmed by possible reductions in state funding

that it chose to drop out of a career exploration program'newly

launched under YETP in FY 1978.' Potential operatbrs are limited

in ruralloalance'of state areas. *The sub-grantee contracted FY

1979 YET funds with a local community action agency and shifted

its whore youth program strategy from the in-school pilot to an

out -of- school effort.

Kitsap County staff met with school district counselors

at the end of the 1977/1978 school year. School 'district personnel commented favorable on he quality of training and the efficient, organization of the new in-school program. The prime sponsor considered increasing the size of the program, but chose not

to because of logistical difficulties involved in covering a

kadee, geographic area encompassing.slx school districts with only

one full-time coordinator. The vocational coordinator' for the inschool program, stationed at the Peninsula Vocatippol skills center,

was judged to be highly effective bWt definitelerworked. The

non-financial agreement between the skills center and the Bremerton'

QAA. was augmented with a small financial contract to provide for

\ telephone and copying cost . A PSE wSrker was assigned to provide clerical support for he in-school program. Although the

overall level of funding r mains the game, a major,shift was

made in funding sources for the in-school program. Displeased

with the inflexibility' of project jobs, the prime sponsor decided

- to fund the pilot project out of YETP and Title I and to eliminate

YCCIP funding in the in-school trogram. This will increase the

program's ability to develop positions geared to individual participant needs. Goals for FY 1979 are to maintain the him sten445
20

dards for work -sites established_ in FY 1978, to develop quality

training Plans or each participant, and to build stronger ties

between job acti 'ties and academic work for in-school participants. "%wr. One of the critical issues in developing LEA linkages ap-'

pears to be the assignment of responsibilities within the schOol

district. Prime sponsor staffs are united in their belief that

regular school counselors are too weighed down with other demands

to effectively assume major functional roles in 'CETA programs.

The organization of operational roles is handled differently by

each system. in small programs, like Kitsap County's, where

there are only a few participants in each schdol, itIS:tnecessary

to.maintain coordinating staff outside the high schools.1(Kitsapli

coordinator is assigned to a multi-school district vocational

educational facility, whiih seems to be a good arrangement.)

In large systems, like Portland, work exrerience coordinators can

be maintained in each high school. Portland Public Schools has,

also assigned broader coordinative responsibilities to a career

specialist in each of three geographic area of theCity. Lane

County As trying to-focus school responsibilities on career edu.,--

cation teachers rather than counselors. It is'important that

functional staff be associated with education agencies rather

than CETA organization if youth services are to have a meaning- . ful,impact on public school systems.

As educators and CETA prime sponsors look more closely- . at drop-out prevention; there seems,to be an increase in pitsMires to focus services on a younger population. "Vie should be

turning these kids on to work and career development when they're

13 or 14," said a Portland manager. -IThen maybe they wouldn't

drop out in the first place." Some sponsors, like Kitsap and

Portland, attempt to address this situation by allocating some

of their Title I dollars to services for younger students experiencing difficulty.in school.

MPD staff in Oregon point out that the dikelopment of LEA

linkages.under YETP presents special prOlems for balance of state

areas: flair sub-grantees are working With over 200 school districts, and it's hard to get real working mechanisms in place.'

So far we're not really buying anything from the schools with'

YETP; we're offering them a useful service. Further progress

must be based on cooperation and recognition of mutual objectives."

4

Changes in Programs; FY 1979_.

Dramatic changes in youth strategies are not planned for

FY 1979 within the pride sponsor areas studied. The major focus

of this year's effort will be to fully operationalize YETP programs,

build more effective ties with the private sector, upgrade and

4 1

at.

t 
21

enrich transitional services, and improve placement outcomes.

Enrollment levels in YETP will be pushed up considerably; the

sponorsdplan to serge about 50 percent' more youths in FY 1979

than the 1.183 enrolled in YETP last year. YETP service mix is

shifting slightly. (tee Table 10.) While the number of planned

enrollmentsin each activity hasgenerally increased (in line with

planned total enrollment increases), the proportional mix has

been altered. Classroom training and transitional services will

' receive stronger emphasis in IMP, while work experience is being

deemphasized. About the same percentage of total enrollment

(35 pecent) will be accounted for by career employment experi

ence, but planned work experience enrollments account for only

17 percent of total proiected'YETP enrollments. (Last year 26

percent of YETP enrollment was in the work experience category.")

YCCIP project enrollment will be expanded, and prime sponsors plan

to work hrder, on training and transitional goals for YCCIP par

ticipants.

Lane County plans a modest increase in the number of YETP

participants. Classroom training and OJT enrollments are ekpec

ted to increase by about 40 percent. Transitional services will'

be emphasized in FY 1979. Lane County staff plan's to deliver

more and better career seminars, and to improve the dissemination

of vocational materials. For in schooY efforts, there will be

more emphasis on employability development planning and better

curriculum planning.

These changes reflect a shift,in Lane County you-b. s rategy

away fronag predominantly social service intensive model tyard

- a stronger employment and training oriented approach. T. angs

of reorganization have beers felt keenly within the Youth' program.

. Formerly, youth services were delivered through.a separate bureau

within the umbrella Department of Cmmminjarth and Social.

Services in Lane County. Youth program tended to be regarded

as a social service effort. During the past year, the Youth Ser

vices Bureau was abolished, and youth services were unitedjwith

PSE and Adult Training under a new CETA division. Title I and

III responsibilities have been integrated under a new manager.

Positions in the reorganized system are just being filled and

the total implications for youth services of the reorganization

are not yet completely clear. However, there has been a recent

push toward shorter term, more placement oriented services and

reductions in ancillary supportive services; Youth staff hope

that they %WU be able to continue their emphasis on high risk

populations like offenders. And they are hopeful that the coop

erative linkages that have been established With a wide array of

social service agencies can be fully utilized to 4111 supportive

service needs that can no longer be met with CETA funds. The

new Title I and III Manager, Lee Beyer, would like to expand and

strengthen inschool programming.

The character of the YCCIP program in Lane County will be

somewhat Afferent this year. Last year minimum size limits

0 4/1'7
were placed on YCCIP proposals, and projects tended to be large.

This yeah YCCIP proposals were reviewed by an ad hoc committee

made up of members from the couil at large rather than the

youth council. council. The review committee was concerned with supervision and set a maximum project size limit to insure the wider

distribution of XCCIP resources and' responsibilities. Projects

will be considerably smeller this year. With fewer participants

in a,..larger number of projects, the prime sponsor will not be

able to fund'supervisory positions for individual projects,

"This means that YCCIP will be more like PSE for kids," said one

Lane County staff member. "And we're not really sure how that

Will work out." NJ

OR. . In Portland, the major goal for FY 1979 is to push enrollments up and move the yoUth system.toward.full operational capacity. YETP enrollment is expected to increase by about 64 percent, from 682 participant in FY 1978 to 1116 in FY 1979. Portland will continue to enp size special projects, that operate

under contract to t e sch oldistrict, community colleges, or

non-profit organizationS and provide an innovative mix of services.

This year nine special projects have been funded under YETP/Title

. I including: Medical Careers, the Black Education Center, Emergency Home Repair, and the Career Research Facility. Classroom , training'and career employment experience will continue to account for the largest segment of program activities.. Transitional

services will be emphasized in FY 1979. Work experience will

account for less than 10 percent of total YETP enrollment according to the plan. There will be a stronger emphasis-oh training

and transition in YCCIP projects. Portland youth staff reported

that the climate-of reorganization is "too insecure to consider

big priority changes in youth services, but we're definitely workihg to improve performance and the quality of services". . In addition to reorganization uncertaintes, staff shortages in Portland jay be a critical problem in t e smooth operation

of FY 1979 youth 'programs. Area. office managers are committed to

ambitious service goals but depend on PSE funding for staff support. Counseling vase-loads in area offices are already high,

and additional staff is not being hired. The effective. management of in-school components and YCCIP projects also depends on

the capabilities of the area officeslasentral youth staff

managerial and monitoring capability is weak. Central administrative staff strongly supportive of Portland's youth efforts has

largely left City enployment, and only four positions are currently filled in the central youth office.

Prior to last summer, Youth Services comprised a separate

division within Portland's Human Resources Bureau. CETA services

for youth, juvenile diversion, and other city - funded youth aZ-.

tivities were administered under the Youth Services Division,

which enjoyed co-equal status with the Adult Employment and Training Division and the Seniors Division. The Bureau has now been

reorganized into two major divisions: Social Services and Employment and Training. Youth services appear to be a low priority

withih,the new Employment and Training Division. -Key staff

4,1r
23

positions in the Division have been filled by personnel frolriba

adult programs.

The tajor thrudt of Division Director, Joe Gonzales, is to

link CETA with new economic development efforts in Portland. This

means indust pecific (in some cases, corporation specific)

training pro ams. It is unclear how CETA youth resources will

be fitted into urrent D*rision strategies. There is a chance

that the area office opeYations/management structure may be dismantled in January and youth services may be integrated with

adult programs in a new delivery system.- Gonzales believes that:

"It will probably-13e necessary to preserve some kind of%specialized outreach and intake capabilities for youth; But we also

need a way to pull youth into the total .system. ...We're working

with the private sector, and that's where the future is for employment and training." In any case, Gonzales expects that close

ties with Portland Public Schools will be maintained.

I

. The major change in Kitsap County is that YCCIP isrnow an

oat-of-school program targetted on high schocil drop-outs. GED

preparation and high completion will be stressed for.project par-

, tioipants. The prime) to be able to secure academic

credit for YCCIP participants who choose to return to public

school. The YETP program in Kitsap includes both in-school and

out -of- school components. The in-school program will continue

to _emphasize the development of individual learning plans, the

attainment of academic credit, and the dissemination of career

.planning materials. Title I willi"used to fu .d a number of career

employment experience positions ,for younger in-school youths. _.1

Kitsak will be pushing harder for private sector placements,,.

OJT enrollment wild. be increased by over°70 percent. More activity in classroom training is also anticipated. ,The'Kitsap program

also plans-to make 10 direct placements in private sector jobs

n FY 1979. Only about half as many ork experience enrollments

are expected in this year'd IETP pro am. . Final figures on planned enrollments anyervice mix for

Ore BOS were not available for inclusionkin his report. Youth

staf in Oregon's, Manpower Planning Division report that there

will be A stronger emphasis on private sector transition objectives. "Our major termination objective is placement in unsubsidized employment", I was told by a MPD analyst. "Return to school

is also acceptable as a termination outcome, but we've had too

many 'completed program goals' terminations. We want the sub-

', grantees to tighten up on that." MPD would also like to see a

better balance 'between in-school and out-otAchool programming

in the balance of state. The present YETP program is weighted

more heavily on services for high school students. "Unfortunately

our service mix is based largelyOn the realities of local servic

delivery capability rather than on the mix of'need", the analyst

concluded.

44,9

4
D. MANAGEMNT, MONITORING, AND-EVALUATION

d Defining Management Objectives

In analyzing prime sponsor monitoring and assessment 4-

pahilities, it is he,lpful to begin with an examination of the

processes by 'which management objectives are, defined and transmitted to actors in the youth service systems. Grant-applications

for each program require a formal statement of prime sponsor

objectives in the "Results and Benefits" section. Such statements,

however4 are of little practical use unless' management goals are

understood and supported by key staff and are translated into

workableipot measurableoperational objectives. CETA directors and planners seem to Agred that the best pray to insure commitment to managerial objectives is to involve operation staffs

in the process of extablishing these objectives. Among the primb

sponsor systems included in this study, there is considerable

divergence,in4he extent to which management concerns are tied

to specific operational objectives and backed up with meaningful

monitoring capabilities. But in-each case, key operators were

heavily involved in the setting of ,objectives for their portions

Of program endeavor.

Lane County operates its own youth sks.t --with the exception of in-school and YCCIP activities, whi are'cintracted.

Managers and se ce coordinators were the major source of input

in defining obj tives for yy 1979 grant appligations. The Lane

Countyyout4 p gram is in the process of making some shifts in

approach ame trategy. These shifts are related to the recent

reorganization,,and future directibns depend on priorities that

will be determined above the youth services level. The position

of Director of the new Division of Employment angraining has

only recently been filled. Communication within the youth sevices

area has improved since the Title I/III manager came on, but

management gaps at'the top have created a climate of some insecurity. Staff member report that they have begun the process of

incorporating measurable objectives into contracts for in-school

activities, but they are still "just-scraping the surface" in

defining operational/managerial objectives.for the system at large.

a Sub-grantee4 in 'Oregon BOS'are responsible for delineating

their awn Objectives in individual plans that are.integvated into

the grant application for the balance of state. Mutt( staff at

t#eManpoiver Planning Divison doe6 not have a routinized, way of

measuring subtgrantoe performance against local management goals-' -

other than the numerical objectives fed into the grant =application.

00

Last year, under knowledge development, the Portland staff

worked to develop clearer sets of objectives for each majoi portion of the youth' program. MeasUrable objectives are specified

in the contract for each special project funded under YETP/Title I.

I
?5

Goals for YCCIP projects are also delineated formally, and each

area office,hm its own set of quantifiable program objectives

(based on DOL reporting requirements) that were developed in

the YETP planning process. Informal communication within Portland's youth system is good. Area managers meet,weekly with

centralyouth staff. Local area managers are also responsible

,for overseeing the activities of the schools and ()" VCIP operators in their areas and reporting b ck to the central staff.

Management intentions for yo th programing in Portland

® have not been communicated clearly, however, front the top level

of the Employment and Training Division to those in the youth

service system. Atthis point in time, central youth staff and

area office personnel all understand that training linkedfto

economic development is the "top priority". But nobody knows

what impact, this new thrust will have on the mix of activities

an delivery mechanisms that hays,teen established for youth.

There is a good deal of fear thgt management in the Division

will decide to dismantle what has proved to be 4 pretty effective

and flexible youth' service system. In addition to uncertainty,

the youth system also suffers from current gaps in central management capability. The accountability features built into contracts

and'operating plans are not backed up with adequate monitoring

capacities at the central staff level.

Kitsap County's youth system is small, simply designed,

and well coordinated with other CETA efforts. Apart from individual school and work- sites, only three major agencies are involved in the system: the prime sponsor, the Bremerton Community

Action Agency, ,and the Peninsula Vocational Skills Center. Key

staff in each ageilcy work closely together. Management objectives

are clearly understood and transmitted through the system. Because of proximity-and scale, both progress and problems in the

youth system tend to be highly visible to management. Performance

goals it the sub-contracts derive from and are linked to'program

performance goals stated in the plan, Kitsap has a system for

monitoring performance and goal attainment by major program area.

-J" Data Collection and Reporting Systems

In assessing prime sponsor data collection and reporting

for youth services, it isimportan.t to distinguish betweeit the

capabil* 'es of existing Inanagement information "systems and the

exten to w 'ph these capabilities have been tapped for use in

the management and assessment of youth programs. '4. general,

management information systems are designed to,fulfil DOL reporting

equirements., This does not mead t at they are not potentially

useful for local management purposes, the detail and types of data

captured by the systems are adequate r analyses that go beyond
26

what is required by the Labor Department. However, relatively

few prime sponsors have fully utilized potential information

capabilities.. The emphasis has been on tracking for compliance

and DOL reporting purposes. The systems are not generally set

up to feed current,;, managerially oriented information back into

prime sponsor systems. This is particularly true in regard to

_YEDPA. efforts. The programs are new and relatively little energy,

has gone into defining local information needs for youth program

management or building special youth reporting and assessment

capabilities into existing management information systems.

Accuracy in data collection and reporting seems to vary

among the prime sponsors studied. Two of the snotsors do routine

data checks on a perkodic basis and they report that the level

of agreement between original files and MIS tallies is generally

high. Oregon BOS staff complained about a'high error rate in

the output of their automated information system, which necessitates bi-weekly. telephone reporting by sub-grantees for comparison

and back-up purposes. 'Participant data and cost data are usually

tracked separately, and time lags in most prime sponsor fiscal

systems. make it difficult to relate the two. None of the prime

sponsors studied figUres unit costs for youth services or examines

cost related-performance indicators on a regular 'Oasis.

Three of ,the ,sponsors have at least Partially automated

management information systems". Kitsap County relies on a mane

ually operated key sort system. "It's bulky but functional",

I was told by a Kitsap planner. Prime sponsor staffs maintain

that a well designed, fully automated system is a prerequisite

for undertaking any sophisticated program evaluation, and they

typicalty'have a lot.of complaints about the systems currently

in operation. But they also admit that they have not yeti really

`mapped existing MIS capabilities. "We get statistical reports

from the MI3 unit each month, but nobody really has time to analyze the, data Carefully or develop specific management strategies",

was atypical comment from youth staffs.

Monitorin,*

Piime sponsor staffs engage in two basic kinds of monitoring

activity: (1) -desk monitoring, which,typically involves a periodic examination.of basic planned versus actual program statistics,

and (2) orb -site monitoring; in which staff member visit projects,

work-sites, or other operations to observe and review activities,

procedures, and records: Theres a good deal of variation in

monitoring practices and capabilities among the four sponsors.

In general, formal youth program monitoring capabilities (other

than ,contract compliance)are fairly weak. Prime sponsors tend

I to rely more on informal working relationships to keep abreast

1 #52
8

27

of current activities and problems in youth operations.

Kitsap County '.J-2ddeSc, a monthly review of performance statistics by broad program area. They are not able to analyze in

greatjetaill but they do get a basic monthly check on performance

in comparison to .plan. A more complete analysis is made for each

program on a quarterly basis. The prime sponsor youth staff

maintains close contact with program operators, and key operations

staff visit work sites and schools. Individual participant progress is tracked in relationship to learning objectives defined

in individual plans.

Statistical reports summarizing performance versus plan

measure are prepared manually by youth staff inOregonls'Manpower

Plprning Division on a monthly basis. In addition to basic DOL

indicators, MID tracks the incidence of academic credit awarded

for work experience. Copies of the PVP analysis go to field representatives that oversee activities in the sub-grantee areas.

Corrective'action requests are generated, when needed, on a,quarterly basis. MPD staff members say that on-sight monitoring of

sub-grantee youth programs is done on a somewhat sporadic basis.

"Sub-grantees have their own rudimentary PVP procedures. But we

don't have any detailed handle on local monitoring activities",

a MPD youth analyst told me. "We need to do more on-sight monitoring--to really examizie programs and services. Most of what's

done now is trouble-shooting or minimal compliance monitoring."

41. Lane County has an automated system that generates program

statistics on a monthly basis. The monthly statistical reports

are transmitted to program operators. Plan versus performance

analysis is conducted only on a quarterly basis in sync with DOL

requirements. "The system has the capacity to go conaidrably

beyond DOL requirements", said the MIS specialist. "But we haven't

really got on to of Title III needs. Our monthly Title I reports

are much more useful because managerial indicators have been programmed into the format." On-site monitoring activities in Lane

County are handled separately from MIS review functions. The

position pf youth analyst, in which primary monitoring responsibility is vested, is.currently vacant. The YET.? in-school coordinator previously managed the SPEDY program, and she plans to

adapt and use monitoring tools that were employed successfully

last Summer in SPEDY.

Portland's central youth office has one contract monitor.

He is responsible for overseeing special pr jects, and he has also

been involved heavily in program developmen and the provision of

technical assistance.to.special project co ractors. ThO current

youth services manager feels that this mul D e role presents

conflict of interest problems and tends to' weaken monitoring

effectiveness. The central office is not able to provide regular

git 453
28

monitoring for activities other than special projects. Over-taxed

area managers must provide for any monitoring that is needed in

regular in-school or out-of-school components. And most of the

41. monitoring that gets done occurs on an informal basis in the course

of fulfilling normal operitional role's. Area manager meet weekly

with central staff to discuss problem0 and plan corrective action

strategies.

Desk monitoring at the central office level is almost non-

,existant in Portland's youth system. Portland's MIS has been described as a "manually operated; automated system". After a rather

unsuccessful stint of operation by an outside contractor, the MIS

was pulled in-house by Director Gonzales; and reporting functions

for all CETA programs were consolidated in a central MIS unit in

the Employment and Training Division. The MIS seems to function

with considerable difficulty; there have been frequent delays in

meeting DOL reporting deadlines. None of the central youth staff

reviews--or even sees--MIS reports on a regular basis. Any desk

. monitoring that gets done happens at the area office level, but

area office staffs are so pressed that there is little time for

computing or analyzing current program statistics on. a regular

basis.

Knowledge Development and Other Assessment

Each of the prime sponsors reported that last year's knowledge development activities fielded some experience of local

value. But only in Kitsap, did knowledge development results

entirely meet prime sponsor intentions and expectations. Experii

mental designs were especially hard to implement during the first

YEDPA year and rarely came off as planned. Influenced by the

language in DOL planning materials, prime sponsor knowledge development designs tended to be overly ambitious. Hopefully, flawed

attempts at "scientific investigation" won't have the effect of

permanantly dampening local intere t in evaluation. But, for the

time being, prime sponsors seem to approaching assessment with

considerable caution.

.Lane CouUty attetpted to apply an experimental design to

assess the benefit of pairing economically disadvantaged youth

with trainable mentally retarded youth in work and training set- - tings. The special project was judged 'to be worthwhile, and learnings will be used for fkkture program activities. But Lane County

was not able to preservecleand research design.. Although

the entire knowledge deve pment effort is seen as auite seperate

from broad evaluation or rogeam concerns in Lane County; further

positive developments in outh program assessment can be expected.

Lane County has the b current MIS capabilities of the prime

sponsdrs studied. T ey are working ou monitoring and evaluation

tools that can be use in the planning and mangement of youth

services.
29

Kitsap's experiment with individual learning plans was

highly successful. The plans are being upgraded, and their use

4IT has spread from the inschool pilot to other phases of youth

programming. atsap staff would like to develop better follow

up capabilities for tracking participant outcomes. They are also

interested in devising better ways to measure quality of training

within program components.

Portland's attempt to deielop an objectivebased contract-

-ing and assessment capability has not been entirely successful.

They did develop a standard (MBO,type) format for stating quanti

fiable project objectives linked to process related performance

indicators. But the effectiveness of the format was hindered by

a lack of technical assistance and monitoring backup. Because

of staff limitations and Other pressures,' nobody in Portland was

assigned responsibility for completing a year end narrative report

for FY l97. Further assessment developments in Portland will

most likely have to wait for the resolution of reorganizational

issues and the rehabilitation of the management information system.

Oregon BOS had considerable difficulty with tlieir know

ledge development design. In compar'ing programrenrolling non

income eligible youth to other programs, They were unable to

control for variables like labor market conditions, participant

characteristics, and service mix. They' were forced to withdraw'

any intention of statistical validity and decided to atiempt'a

more descripti7e analysis of program performance. In FY 1979,

MPD will compare credit awarding results of programs with school

based counselors to thosq of programs without. This assessment

project is seen as being more relevant to local objectives.

Local subgrantee fears of centralized evaluation strategies, the

geographic spread and demographic d4versity of the balance of

stat , and staff limitatioris make youth program assessment a dif

fic t proposition for the Manpower,Flanning Division.

455

sei
YCc/P ZWIleiziwEivr ,ay AttmciMivr cNivifervariz

if 1978 CutraLahloe 7.4e4 e

s mow-7c

aha4ade°

Ri734-Pco. Lir04- eo. n.IN D ORR 6 9, 411 :

% it % ;it °/o IP- %

TarAE-Nload41ENT

,

19 texPlo It /moo 74 /00%

...at / 5- 79% 3 I 167.4. #17 '51

na.. y al% is- m% 30 440-6 7*

. ;')volim-,

EGOAtAie DIV D 1/.

_Catiow70.3s tipx)

19 /00% 21 1 416%. 60 81 i%

6.8%

1.2e2S

, -2 0-35% LP=

AletwEes-7.4pr

1 9 " i i poi 5

4 l 1324 9

s,L___rnis

Acs.prop-INct- 1 , 501 15* 33% 419 (24424

DeArr. Is 95° /o 7 I 5% 2q 32q% /Cs. aeila

"Algae

o , ' flit i 3 (77d I Azikk

/ srftMS

lingo:piaved i lo

1

eV%

5-%

32 174:129-

1 0 9/./6/

t , _underemplo-fped I I 17.

0 iia.o..t3' 2. /1% 13 12.8% 4t- 5"" Mat 0_11444emsxs

)4P7X/Pabri.6 Assts. 7 [3riD i* 2f 34270

14.970

1.410

FendszA 4 jai% 6' Ti.3%, ' ' it

I , A

ilo4dicaped. ei 2.4%

Veiverctit 0 - *

gels go44.

40y-w

IT 74%

aiN

qa.' qi% z)

I /./; '770 13

lorner

584

,

i Uicary8racs /3 Gs% /6 1 35% .57/. 73%
YErP eNeottMENr .64-1 ,qA7-02 10)0062.4kt 4c77vity

FY 197:2 Culiap_Anlle"

sPoNsok

40e06/24

v: AcTiViry

unit!. 4C770171-/

.tAB1E3

let7AP c 0 LANE cO.

ncTuAt. LAN

. °/011/4

71 lo070 82

e.Ae6-&-kEMPloy. 20 -22% go

re.411.51noW se-R14

9% 9.

7 8% 5-

1404K EXPEEIFNcE 65% 5-`1

9oNAN -ACTUAL

ik °Al

//let '4//o /00%

42 5%

070

2007o

/4/0%

J3.5 317

.4%

PLAN

630

/351

9.3

BY -V% 265

2c 5%

,18% 167

%puw

65%

las%

9S%

32%

50%

6,9A

PoR7-LAND

ficruAL

6S2

270

-0

look

.?q.4°

A79

129

71( 446 40 yi.t4L¢Ait X. 06 7 04 01 .94i ntsA

I

4 5'61 .

PLAN % Paw

1/9

350

'11P/ 300

IJoi

I1.97D 175

75%

. 7770

0

q3t

G370

7q%

oPE-60A1,113as , &WM, RAN %P4N

4 -
J

LICC4P 4-AlebitAlt./VIS e 146470k PPo6tAH 4cTuiTy

A-y 19'78 cum() 1,4-7ive

kiTsAp co . LANE Co.

.-1

to7At.. 4c77vtry

ACV AL

14)o,ek ex-0t41eAr6"

1'

ICI

Pain/ °/00P

PLAN

16 /19%

/6 1/q%

CAR V-Ele' tUttolf

1.- X iolg 1 ENCE

s2

0.1...4c.50-1 re A 1 6. -0

c43-r

OR TLINsmog4t,

5C o/c es

4:,-')(3

MN.

Ica

AcrUAL,

zap

2/6,

RAN

30

3.o

r:ifeter"

% of

NAV

/53%

/53%

PORTLAND

ACTUAL,

71/

79

7

PLAN' OF

PI-.4A1

?7°10

t __Lc? rio

......-: T3 76 70%

0 ,E, E--.6,oN, 605

Armit..

I 'I

Pc.A A)

,I

.,, % OP ..3

PL-.400/ '

I

4 6 ti
'Ll fr -)cPENontittr osti PRo6RAN Ac.71 Tr y

A-AN V5 A C711,4 1- Pi 117g._ ..__ LANE. co. __ __ _________ 5P0/607 t /7-5,4p co. RIP TLA ND

--,

. 46711/ay , Nam. Adept, %10104i

o

11571)

63%

168%

71/10

'RV%

Plan

%0 &1/00

40

110,96/

10,7$7

200,39,0

2)1/50

66817

llacia

155168?

la//

29,444

/431/3

./83,11/*

1)557

361,2cy

% fl

/ 9 4%

/1.10%

70e/0

1057,

92 %

.45 %

loS%

Phut

73,26$

1)446

24718541

$61931/

111381

017),1q7

70;560

Ada 0.1,

ai(*29

-a

223'1%

ti603

77,421

!/1,8 79

% Pla,

/ 010

0

61/74

257.

/51%

75%

Cal 42.1.4 Env. sA 1)qsC. 0-% ___ %ow/

v/34

'!2s/09._

43-A6

122,051

tAct.44s Sat-. et.49,410 7/19,_ 0,1/73.

0 .7-T 5')1 5 7 v (.00-tic fx. 5%557

I Sem). to Pa A - t , '1,7'19

ro 7-4 L 1`/6,711

SP0115 c).1

4C77 II fry

CaAszm sgio. e x

rAct.fic.,

Ctass /Lot Tr9.

OTT

o-Jc cx

S4.41, -I o .ecta .

70r4

VCC/ P Pc N pint it' E. 8g Pe06 AM A-crory

PI4N vs if Ici-44L F Ig7ft

4.17-5,4 i)

Pia"

30)934

-7)90/

/1c./tiki

18)019

9)383

27)1/02

OP E- 60 N, Boy

Plavi 406.4

mete&

%

1,4 NE Co. POET-LAND ORE6ON, Bos

liar Ace % Plate 4414(g4.

3L9F)

% ne4.44.

//6°/0

Ptati &Attica- I %Paw,.

. _52% SY, 9.27 92171/ /09% 1911/0 61%

119% I1)725- /215bb 07% /7,324/ o%

71% 94) 491 /05-1337 10% 158,572 /0/,897 CV/.
potiAe At..coor 104 8(/ PPO6EA AcT7U ITV

Ve7P/L/GGIP FY 1978 .eumui.4pur

SIONso4

---4

,

le 17514 p CO. LANi: CO. foPriANP

(ft-TP

0.e&--6oti

I/ erP (/CUP ilETP YCCI P iicCIP verp ticcle 1 A cn oiry f % $ °A $ vo $ % s % $ °46,- % .4cbe0,

cAeE-E-e FAi P. e)( o '75'6;49? 9/ °/o 188,02: 366%i -

teA/451r SEA o 0 6?It .. 3% _ . a , .Asskti 7-p/v6, st,g05- 8% 0

13,6oll, 7.4% .2-2-1q3416.7,0 33/55a 33.270 ___:2_ _ _ . . _ O 1 i. arr 3)1/37 3 °/0 0 .0131/3 3% 0

;21§393 I-3% - 7S/% is)oli a oY /93,Y/8 /9%92,749 Obl 771421 152% Oc°47 (04.84

.... F-tER.1.1 to PA kr. 19)207 /59'0 (1)383 11°4 17587 .100 '12)5881 17% 1 ;, yorA L. 122,35: l00% 2.7)02 10070 381,89/

. . /00% lor,34. 100% 51107B 100. 101o7

7 1070

PLANNep AcLOCA770A1 811 _ _... . . ... ..r IL 5P0 NS° e

---, A c i W i r ei

l 4 17-5A P CO. LAME Co. POenA ND 0 e E-6,0Ai

yerr ( j C.c1P tie-TP I, qCC-iP Licr-p

0 701

r tt al

$

p

64

yo--p

Is 79

(xc.

t

$ 104 h '"i0 .z' l 107$ 0 /0

111-444.15/4- Se c'

citlp,,,t, -rx 1816. ___ . 077-

v4 yea g EX prki/i7Ver ____._

SEP. To PAP ri.

TOTAL

9454"/

0 1 32,3091

26,997

(00)W/1

.v1,831%,

2)1°4 _

17%

el%

32%

10010

Q

o

0

0

34)/69

36,03

/43,660' )4°4

4,814 0%

- 124,93o 16.100

5o,77/, 6.6%

/0070 914/147 53.7 - 1v75- 1.3%

10070'77%11 mo%

0

o

o

0

163,2gy

-

/c00%

159, victi 13.7%

412,31, -.- 51;7,381 zi9%

lolvMD 91/0

101)271 8401751558

22G)732. 11.5Z

1)16`4,3C1 I 41901/6'

1

(09%

51.5%

loot

-or

1 41' 1

-Ascii'

,v,.olcm,..
r

96--D PA SEkt9lc.F 70 siAfiFiCAAiz- ..SE--6/4-feNTS

PC.AN US. AC AL. PAIRortAlEA/7- FN 14,78

SPOIVSOk

i 5"141F-i

5e6REA/r

.

. . , K i rs,i p (64, LANE

,Co. .PORTC O -002E-Cood LogYerp ,. lice. /P Ye-1-P ticcip ver,0 (/4-rf Vail'

-A- 1:C alt. A)

1°

1

12Mf 1 3 300075)15

.z1

'r

17

.

153,

iin

_..

44r It!!

los

4t

91/

Z37

3

ON?

to%

5°70

64

. t "Ct 6111X

.

E Z

0.9.

-14.4rvatc4iPeb

.

s

-q, "1 fr-4 13

V

4

/

904

831

8O

4

_. ___ 36°

r 5'

II/

0

25

0%

[ nifin/.0.erriE5 tb A

, 4/1/

AlP

,,. /Int.'s"

6Ptle4-:

Women.

iveretoms .

. -!. ,.

37

-,q,'

O

1. I

4

4 C
)

tit-rp EiveutLI-IcN75 e'-/ P AA( AC.711)i7/ Th-ri E,10

CoMPAPI5oN OF SE-Et/Ice MIX P /978 (4c/i//70 7D F'/ 1q179 (PLANNED)

5-96 w_so 4

1 PP664414

Acnt

110TA1 4crallms eneibtext

1/7-5,4-P co.

FL/ prin. A//979

r/cru N

ZaML.

ell '0o°°

# /0.

1 /00

Is Nr CO

FL? /472

Acn.(41,

/o0r,

d4REE-72. EMPtoy,

4-YPE-Paio4e- 2.0 Ana 2/ 30i /35 3/70

Po.erLA iyv

Pvivs. Ai

/'

-# % %

'682 tag li16 -16070

/5-0 3/y0 270 jib% (11G 37%

sol--GoN 1393

1r117;71( pt';; ?i9

4474,4(... 'LAN

% a:91 c/0

MANS/no/4

I "srt

got

eLAss Poom

rEil/NINCI

or

8. 8470

,7 7.7%,

plo4ic

eXPEWIE-NcE C9 5%

`.

/2

to

0 1/26/0

by

20

370

21 0/c,

5%

I /5 28%

279

2s*

129 ti°10

, 4 100

11(0

'1

3470

ti 04

10%

0
SPONSOIL

TERAIN.

'WE"

!TOTAL TERM 1AI

-ItorAL PoCtr I

OnTETEDCHI

orNtt POSITit44 Posinve.

t,1

i? t EkAtmoirlon/:.; / 4:1N vs. PI kr-tie /14/VCE /9'78 1111-3LE

1 k /75AP co LANE Co. POETLAND CRE-60N

PLAN AcivAr. °/0P PLAN Acrtult.. % P Pla4- 4c.hgti %p P/401 Atka

82- g5 I% 63o a57 1.1610 551 382 69

G2. 75- 121% it (25" /72. 37% 1.13y ,Z51 s-q% . oY 33 1/6 /34% A65" 31" /5,1, /I 5 9'9 .63%0

2.9 29 1 ocro A60 1 3 51% its' LS'S a% 4111' A.0 10 50% /05 77 75-0,10 117 rzsr /act%

80.5

P

6

7481E12

fcc/ P Te-P, 41N oNs / PLAN -US Ac77.L PE FoPRA Nee 1 1g7ff

SPONSolt

likM.

1.-

4irsA p Co,

,---

6 AN s- co. PogrIAND ok ' &-60/v, 805

. TYPE 'PLAN Acitted % P 'LAN A\Gictea % P PM* Ilaqui % P . Plowi 44A.ti %P

'ibrALTEktylr:I. IG -19 WI% 30* 3`71 /13% 74 , /IL 6170

toTi L. P05177UES 13 1$ /36% 3o /9. 63'3% "54 21 W;1% . ENTer titipi.ov; 5) 9 so% . 20 6 . 30% Li y loo70

. OTIEZ POS. 8 //./ /75% 10 /3 / 30°4 37%

/VON 1)05171U E" 3 / . 33% 0 16" 20 23 11570

. ,

. b ,

1

7 /=,(3 . . -

. 47 !)

ti
cc 0097- PER" INDICA To /2.

yErp/qcc/P,8456-6 o N >^ Y /97g PAT,}

4.

TM -F73

,poNso,_

-7:'1411(eLlar

Lk IT-SAP LANE" CO. poRrtAN A OPE6oN, 80511

YeTP ticc/P' verg.

4 931.35

licu p

z)90.00

YErp yCC/ P Ve7P Ifcci?

6 cosr pe.e

P4P71 GI PANT

$635 Iii2P/Z A751. 16377..

.. essr PE 4 . )1?)5/nVE" rOmbvAr

$ 4 432 $ 6522,

$ 6)v50.00

$ 2) 220. ce 5;9/940 , .2)615. , 9 ;1)2130.

3. Cosr *PER

piAcE MEAlr

aNitoymtNr)

1

'16)6 ' A coe 0, 13 17)537.00 53170-. $25)17Li. ____

.

.

,

7 i

4

.4
Chkacruittc..

ror.4c EA, eouidcAir

SEA:

inetee.

geen

SPEpy- F q 78

Pat./ (60,1.01 Cleta-t.C.0 s

4/7574P CO;

%

,/00%

v3 r 3-0.s

/ 4'9.2

47 , 174

128 Lie

71 g4.7

7. 5'

.1 ? z 7 Aro

2$

119 /t/4

:J( /00 %

/ .2 4 1/4.6

tiqueArio,v s7u o&-- fir

OPollogr

complero , -INCOME . gcavog, D t5,40.4d,

4FOC/ Ai& A 5.6/ s

0711A/16 6,e P:'

Black

Ais1t4ita4/,ftncittadt.

OtIk44,-

.5e: Air NI"

Or-rend.u.

liciectiCa7opect.

Vet- , 1.4eot Poikt .s747ts,

anen47oloitc/

V.44 envley"

6*1LiA.

473

.2o4

17

13

_32..

31

.24

5-0

11.6

q8

7119e16-' fif

LANE C-4.

9 0 g i00.70

g9,1

7/l 08f, 7887.0

1.4140,

L3 c13

o9

f/o0

'539 ".

POD 72 4iV

°11-1Y 100

02CZ,oN, 1305

- q72.

/ 0 0 a

/090

6se

A.).2 °/0 /s/

-79

80

/ 6 7

-1978-

5 3

783

a9

. 47

1

.56.9

3

y. 8

/

3.3

8

1/Y/ /o

50 4q

55",/%

33.39'o

7.404

1/ 87,4%

V `1/0

4100%

`13%

3.5 9.?.2%

q30 1/7

5 / 2. t.

1(Z 9.2

/ .2 7.7%

5-6

.17 33

/2

33

2.9

'474
4

_ SPED (.1 f '1

Peel, us. 4 c_d cL A.1.4.0t.44-1a.41

neou,,,a-wr

0.tAssekt 7/2.N6,

OS

oTCa4w4,x;

torA to tx,14(40-ious

et:rte.,4-t-nti e mpiar

0i14.1.4

hort- P ose-ve.:.s

W-S,4 p c-o

70 ploA

*5

iA(Au

2(

2.S5

17

P'6""

027 9

266

3i 20

1 2.02. 2 2.1-1

is ovo

got:,

qtryo

A NE CO.

cio 2

qo2

902.

663

z0 2

(LAa

7S0

2g

533

-2'33

;

SGi C N't5

gareli07.V:a

4

4. A

2. 32

31

.2i/ /5"

/9L/DJ

207%

//9

'3

30

g7

7

0

PO PrIANa co epo Bas

06"'"'" 14,4,1d: PLAA' plo hut

I 64 2.

1 78,

122.

9

W6°LI

12.4 % 141

97% .211

/37 %

'1c2

// y3 /ks:5 47%

/ 5 2 2.0 0 760/0

Plo

n

r

Jo" 47c
A

I

f

J

CASE STUDY

Implementation'of Programs Under Subparts 2 and 3 of

Title II of the Youth Employment and Demonstration

Projects Act of 1977 by Five San Francisco Bay

Area (California) Prime Sponsors

e

by

John .Walsh

Report 3 -- November, 1978

..,'A sl.,- ?, -

. t

t ... , . . .

, .....

, _

44,, " . -, :. s. 1 ° zit - = v - .44,,, fie

> Prepared Gunder contract, .ftr the KationarroAnv.ls; Ve 44 N., ,- ;

... . j on., Emplqymentk 26Xicy, Washington, D-.C. - %.,,-- *4t: .,,,.::..or--0 ' .6

i i, Pr* - I. .

, . 4 .... , . '' ii'l 4

err 1, e- , ,, .1,0 .f 1; . ; ' : Z : I ..

4 v

.4. ' * .a N. , ay (

. 1 4

,

, . ,e, S

i' 10,.. --'...._ '. . A ._

. , ..

ta.

t

r

a- .

so'

7-"-

f
*

FOREWORD

This is the third of foul' reports, to be submitted to the

National Council-on Employment Policy, on pla:nning,'aMplementation

) ., and operation orpr46rams funded under Subparts°,2 and'l of Title

II ef the Youth Employment' and Demonstrationfiojects-iAct of '1977

, , . , . . .

G., , .1' a , by the following.tive San Francisco Say,"Area Prime,Sponsors:- , 4

, 4.40- . , '. , e. 1. San Fiancisco Mayon's Office of EmployMept and"

Training - fC , -

Oakland-Department of Manpqr Dqyelopment..

3. Clara Valley Manpower Board

. 4. Margin County,Office of BOployment and Training

5. \,,,;.ComprehensiVe Employment and Training ServiCes.

Department of Sonoma'Couhty,

,

. Reports Numbers 1 and ,2 were Concerned primarily wtth initial.- d

/

s; . . -

s: z,-

.. 3

a. S. , . i

. , planning and implementatibn aCtivities; this report,coLlpainS A ;. ,

4... IT

, ,4

istatisticd1 analysis 'of irime ipon Ilr sor fo a nce,

.37/1

! ' _,ofAseVgra'isiteswhich-NTlaye gaseli a.,the prim4's

,.. A , . t t

. t , to ' Of f. , revaraing progr

f i 4_ ,, 4 %'

, .Fir.911.1e51,,I..:'./ .. PA : ' : : ' ts

/4)

s lk

'1.T111#1 rnateei

'

aesign'ed stecipidgillylt4? solve

4

1 oplltained irrtsle rer4t is bised

, . ,1 ' - a "

, and a, disdus ion ti

. pbnse'lleJ;b

A

if h.

youtn unempTldy7

*

41"14/ 4, on interviOws

wAh ipt?egionai'd'ultff,,,/pime oponbor, staff, .LEA offiliais, grogram 2

. sA < qper4tOrs and enrollees. Prime sponsor documents were also'exa,gd,

and the services b7ing provided by some program operators were

observed on-site.

4 7t

,/
1

Theppinions.expressed in the report are those of the autAorand do not.necessarily reflect the opinions of the National Council

On Employment Policy, the,United States Department of Labor, or

the five sample prime sponsors'

4

4

eer

o ,
I. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Appendix Tables A, B, C and D show YETf d YCCIP enrollment,

by participant characteristics and program mix, and Appendix Tables

. -

E and F show expenditures by type of program. In this section,

data are extracted from these tables to provide a statistical

summary of the five programs. The section is divided intlp the

following sul?-sections:

-- 1. Overview: A summary of YETP and YCCIP enrollment by

participant characteristics, program mix, expenditures,

planned versus actual performance; and program terminations

2. Interpretation: An-interpretation of the statistics

with regard to'program differences, youth preferences,

effect on FY 1979 planning, and the accuracy of prime°

spons* data and the effectiveness of prime sponsor, . monitoking and evaluation

Tha,overview consists primarily of a disaggregation of data o contained in prime sponsor quarterly reports to the U.S. Department

of.Labor. It presents a statistical description of enrollment in

both the combined YETP-YCCIP program and in each component

AP

separately. .Although comments regarding the accuracy Of prime

sponsor data and the reasons for certain phenomenon are mentioned

In the overview, the major discussion of thes6 subjects is contained

in the interprdtive sub-section.

. ;

1 Overview 4 *

I --..

, '...,.. , Prime-Spon,eor data relating to enrollment` by Participant

.

. . chakaoteristics, program mix, expenditures and terminations .are

480
-2-

analyzed" in this sub-section.

. Participant Characteristics

PartiCipant characteristics for the combined YETP-YCCIP program/ . o and each of the two components separately are broken out as follows:'

(1) Sex; (2) Race; (3) Youth Under 18 Years of Age; (4) Economically

Disadvantaged; and (5) Significant Population Groups.

Enrollment by Sex

Table 1 shows that in the combined YETP-YCCIP program, female

.enrollment is slightly higher than male, Put that in the smaller

YCCIP program, men outnum1per Women by, more than 3:1. Male enroll-

.

, 2 ment in YCCIP is highest in,Santa Clara (85.7 percent), Sonoma

(84 percent), and San Francisco (77.9 percent). InNOakland, more

than three out of ten YCCIP participants are women, and in Marin,

women compose 61.5 percent of the YCCIP enrollment.

In every area exceptMarin, YCCIP programs are primarily in

the building or related trades, which no-doubt accounts'for the

predominance of men. On the-other hand, the fact that 104 women

.(or 24 percent of the 'total) are,enrolled in YCCI' programs implie's

,11.at,sex stereotyping is by.no means rampant. . it "Sable 1

-Enrollment in YETP,and YCCIP by Sex =- Five

S.F. Bay Area Prime Sponsors

Category

Comb. YETPYCCIP 'En. Percent'

YETP

En. Percent

YCCIP

, En. Percent

I

4' Total Enrolment

Male , 'Female

, 909

2433

. 2476

,

,.., 100 J. 0 49.6

50.4

4468

Z098

2370

100.0

, 47.0

53.0

441

.335

'106

100.0

76.0

24.0

4c-1
48

L

Use enrol lment

numbers wit % distribut,,ne

in parentheses

Prime

Sponsor

CUM

TOTAL

FY 78

(as of

a4± g

g

a

---1 r

.

f), ,, a ...--,'

.1-1 3

..-1 c

2

g

C

0

,2

0 , 0

a, u u

E

. 74 i-i.

a (.., ul c0

--,

. 0 i- : -4 a

CI. W 4+ a 41, I'

c c ,.., o

,

, 7., .. . , ,*.g ..., ? ,-.40 .e

--t. 44 ,4 P

t) 0 0 00 0.) t 2 - 19

-4 co x 0 o

.... ,

)

YCCIP

6F /

YETP fr ,

/34

AtT6

an) (?.I) (40A) 094 &co) (fI.)

is,,. 30 <25 ;I J' //

oixd) ED (7) 01) a0.3? au)

-us' 441 oc, 43 L9,3 lapi-

(e (34 --

r5 Iti 0

0;4 0:1)c'57:

3s3 lag .enz

Om) OF') (c.,) '" ea) °"3) ,,-/h

aa 45- d °I. 11"3 0 fT d

ela) 04 af.' (44) (4,1e3? ',,//: 7.-

5a-t d - lio 01 -1.7 Abu I 1YR- . Cit

.

.1

. YCCIP

gi2 tim

. YETP

40-141 . 31

aGl

c.45) etko (630'65.,,, 66-9 ti,63) r 42Af a5- A-- 17 a:.4

MO. 640 0414? Po 'ON) rro

02 153 130 157 iic)- v7o&

(4.7) 445)4/4 3 8 44

0.90:von;

31 7C I426-

0:.1.0) .- 67.9) 09 (770 - -- 31 o ° 7 7 3 0,, '.0

, (4.152 a7..) Csvg) <14 OW 03) 6-'9 al) .. III 07 l'13 a SO al /5 A, cis

..,\

Oak YCCIP

YETI'

ca k .0'

k3

eft

00) (so) C57) (a') (51) lib')

S'g ,9Z- ta 01 tp_ E3

4

' (01) (0.004.4)03s) (7t.$) 600

A/ -21g iao 0 37ff,

440,) g3-q z is ig,

(at) (5) (37.4)

In

No - - 0.0 &L) , g3 . Do 00 of ii2 47 o3 * d I

el",,) - - (*go 6446,40 0,1)

7 0 0,a1.1 ZtLk 5 I i Ai 40

YCCIP!

dame,

'YETP

if4971N,-,

:5V

a ?

all.) (I1;,) (9E(1) cio 60.) ex)

1.1- X -V le 301- .48

(514 (4-)N5) (.40.0 ( ri) (flp)

cio904)(K)a)

0, op 11

0()f( rS"(i4). olg ,.01,7:00,312z.

g.02 Om (0) o.e)_ a()) (a) ('.o)

`1J 'a. a I if a ma 3

./) eo) (6/.4)

i

SC YCCIP

CIP %. . YETP

.

,

)

.,

t

/3 3

. / hi

.

7,) 01/.3) (rf,4) #43) oun a ,s-,

)/1 17 3.5 .V.. ia

014.0 100 Isx,) 01,7) 03.3'), ''677,)

6b6, a5r11/1- Iild PI 131 9

.

. ,

(5 p7i17.5 -, (13.100.5,..0 77.1s 115

04n,) C74)608

3 a 8/Y

.

,

(3,.) (3,41 - gl 4 41 i

(4%9 cti;) 74 '.'

g3° °sr

. ..

.

,

, .

iv-, ) 07.3 ) co, - 7-7,

-51i a3 ,?,4ibti 19

..flib) /.f-t) iii 4:1)

. I

c)

// /

..

-

.J

. 48')
r

37

/)

Minority 6trollment'

N . -. Minorities constitute over 75 percent of the enrollment in the

five=area,,YETPYCCIP program, ranging from a high of over 90 percent

4 in San Francisco to a low of 39.1 percent in Marin; Minority

enrellment.is slightly higher in the YCCIP program (A8 percent)

P

o than in the YETP program (75.5 percent). Oakla4d's "white" enrollment it not broken out by "Spanish American." If it were, Minority

anrollmen%in the five areas would' be slightly,higlier.

-.0.

. Table 2

Minority Enrollment in YETP And YCCIP --

Five S.F. Bay Area Prime Sponsors

Category

Comb, YETPYCCIP En. Percent

YETP

En.

) Percent'

YCCIP

En. Percent

Total 4909 100.0 4468 ,. 100.0 441 .- 100.0'

White, ' 1200 24.4 1103 24.7 97 22.0

Non-Wbite* 2451 49..9 2249 50.3 .202 45.8

Spanish Ameriqan 1258. 25..6 1116 . 25.0 142 32.2

Non-White-S.A. 3709 75.5 3365. 75.3 344 78.0

f

'-Youth Unde 18

Half of the, enrollees in the five YETP and /CCIP programs are

0

under 18 years of age, ranging from a high of 79 percent in the

Santa Clara YCCIP program to a low of 21 percent in its Sonoma

counterpart. A slightly higher percentage pf the YCCIP participants

0 .0

are youtji under 18`(51.4) than their counterparts'in4yETP (49.9).

,

484
-11,atile 3

i. .,---

... Program Tatal Percent , Under 18 Percent

YETP=YCCIP \ 4909 -- 100.0 2457 '50.1

YETP 4468 101.0 2230 49.9

I

. 'YCCIP 441 - 100.0 227 51.4

-, -

Enrollment (:,f Youth Under 18 in YETP

and YCCIP---.Five Bay Area Prime Sponsors

Economically Disadvantaged

t , A' More than eight out of ten of the participants in the live

YETP and YCCIP programs are economically disadvantaged, ranging

from 100 percent in both Oakland programs to 66.7 percent in

YCCIP program. YCCIP enrolleeb are more disadvantaged than their

cC, counterparts i YETP. Close to 96 percent of the-YCCIP partic ants

are economically disadvantaged.lf compared to 83.6 of the YETP

participants:

Table 4

Enrollment of Economically Disadvantaged

Youth in YETP and YCCI'P -- Five Bay Area Prime Sponsor's

r , Program Total Percent Ec. DA ' Per-cent

YET-YCCIP '4909 100.0 4R9 88,4

YETP \\ 4468 10Q.0 3737 83.6,

YCCIP ' 441 100.0- 395 89.6

Educational, Status

Close to seven out of ten YCCIP participants are Ither'high

school dropouts (46.9 percent) or unemployed high.sChool graduates'

(21.3 percent); the corresponding figure for YETP is about four Out

.

rr

4
-5-

of ten. Overall, half, the participants in the five YETP and YCCIP

programs 'are high school' studentt --`53.5 percent of the YETP

participants and ,36.4 of those in YCCIP.

Table 5

Educationaltatus of YETP and YCCIP Enrollees --

Five By Area Prime Sponsors '

Category

Comb.

YETP- Per- Pe'r- PerYCCIP cent YETP cent YCCIP cent

Total , , 4909 100.0 4468 100.0 441 '100.0

H.S. Students i..3 51.4 .12389 53.5 134 '30.4

Dropouts (HS) 1407 28.7 1200 26.9 207 46.9

Grads (HS) '545 11.1 451 10.1 94 21.3

Out-of-School 1952 39.8 1651 37.0 301 , 68.2

Labor Market Status

Over half the participants in the five YETP and, YCCIPprograms

(5415 percent) are listeclas "unemployed;".44 percent as "other"

(mostly students). As might be expected, the incidence of unemployment is much higher for YCCIP-enrollees (85 percent) than it is foi

YETP enrollees (51.5 percent). Slightly'less than half the YETI',

enrollees are students-as compared to only 11.8 pe;cent for their

counterparts, in YCCIP.

Table 6

Enrollment by Employment Status in YETP and YCCIP --

Five Ray Area Prime Sponsors 2

4

Comb.

0.

YETP- Per- Per- Percategory YCCIP cent YETP cent YCCIP. cent

, Total 4909 100.0 4468 100.0 . 441 100.0

Unemployed 2674 . 54.5 2299 51.5 375 85.0

Underemployed

Other

72,

2111

01.5

44.1

58

2111

01.43

47.-2-

14

52

03.2

n:8

486.
I

3

-6-

r . /

.

1 Significant

- Population Groups *

, Table 7 shows the percentages of enrollees in the five YETP

and YCCI,P programs who are: (1) veterans; (2) welfare recipients;

(3) ex-offenders; (4) handicapped; and (5) "other. (mostly

migratory farm_workers). More than one out of three of the participants in both programs are welfare recipients, ineethe incidence

is about the same in.both programs. Ex-Offenders constitute 11.7

percent of the total enrollment, but the incidence of ex-Naffenders

is much higher in YCCIP (164:8 percent) than it. is in YETP,(11.2

percent). Handicapped participants are more likely to.be enrolled

in YETP (06.2 percent) than theyar,in YCCIP (01.3 percent).

\

Table 7

. Percentages of YETP and YCCIPEnrollees who are'Members

of Special Population Groups --

Five Bay Area Prime Sponsors

Group

Veterans

Welfare

Ex-Offenders

Handicapped

Other

YETP..

YCCIP Perceht

I

4- YETP Percent YCCIP Percent

' 39 _.... 36 ,

. 0.1 3 0.1

1799 36-.6 1638 36..7 161 36.5

574 1W7 500 11.2 74 16.8

282 . 1:17/ 276 06.2 6 , 01.3

112

/:)? 97 02.2 15 03.4

Summary'

The,above analysis reveals that both the YETP and YCCIP programs

. are serving primarily economACally disadvantaged youth who are

members of minority groups: Enrollment is split about equally

between men and women andin-school and out-of-school youth; high

school dropouts constitute approximately 29 percent of the total

4 s

;r.

./
1

enrollment. \More than-one out of three of the participants,in both

~programs are welfare recipients, and a healthy percentage of the

a enrollees are ex-offenders.- Enrollment of veterans Arid handicapped

4

4 youth is neg1igible In bot'programs.

The analysis also.indicates that the YCCIP program is serving

the most diAadvantaged clientele., More YCCIP participants are apt,

to be economically disadvantaged, members of minority groups, high

school dropouts, unemployed and ex-offenders than their counters (pats in YETP. )

.10 Program Mix

Participant's in the five '4,CCIP program are-enrolled exclusively

in work,experience projects; thus, the so-called "mix' of YEDPA

programs relates solely to YETP. Table 8 extracts percentages from

Appendix Table C to-show the overall mix in'the five YETP programs.

Table 8

Enrollment in YETP by Type of program (Percentages) --

Five BayArea Prime Sponsors

Prime C. R. Work Career . Trans:

r-. Sponsor Training' OJT Experience Awareness ' Services

,

. All Five 26.0 02,2 11.6 44.2 16.0

S.F. 28.3 04.3 00.0 67.4 p0.0 hi

Marin 29.9 01.4 ;29.3 25.6 13.7

'Oakland 38.0 05.3 19.0 '2'9..4 08.2

Sonoma 18.5 01.4 02.4 56.6 2.2,2 i

S. Clara. 21.8 00.0 -1E331 28.9 31.0

,--, The largest percenge of YETP participants are enrolled in

"career awareness".programs, ETobably reflecting the impact of

488
-8 -

CETA-LEA agreements to provide services for in-school students.

. However, virtually all career awareness programs contain work

experience components; in pct.,' one of the problems involved in

assessing piime sponscir performance in implementing-YETP is

determining the degree to which career awareness programs, actually

it proide opportunities for participants to explore various career -

alternatives. The evidence seems to indicate that many such

4

programs merely provide work experience in single occupational areas.

The second largest percentage of YETP particicants are enrolled

in classroom training (26 percent), followed by transition services

(16 percent) and work experience (11 percent).

Expenditures

Although the Largest percentage of YETP participants, are

eftrolle in c eer awareness programs, class'room-training accounts

for the largest percentage of eXpenditures. The schools usually

pick up the training costs involved in bareer awareness programs,

whereas prime sponsors must pay both 'the training and stipend costs

for classroom training. Table 9 extracts percentages from: ppendix

TableJli to show the dverall outlay of funds 1.-1 the five YETP

programs.

rI
ti

-9-

Table 9

- YETP Expenditures by Type of Program (Percentages) --

Five Bay Area Prime Sponsors

Prime

Sponsor

C. R. \

Traininaf OJT

Work

Experience

Career,

Awareness

Trans.

Services

. .c- . 411 Five 39.4 05.8 13.8 32.21 05.2

S.F. 47.2 16.0 00.0 36.8 .00.0

Marin ,., 11.4 06.1 61'.6 20.6 01.0

Oakland ,.. 300,7 03.6 21.4 15.0 11.2

Sonoma 42.3 90.0 01.0 48.9 07.6

S. Clara '39.1 ,00.0 20.0 34.1 06.0.

. . r.

s Cost Per Slot

An lnalysis was made to determine the cost per slot'of the

various t'pes of programs funded under YETP. Surprisingly, it

turned out that OJT is by far.the most expensive program, In MDTA

days, OJT was a.good deal less expensive than classroom training.

44. YETP OJT, on the other hand, costs over $1000 a slot more than

classroom training. Perhgps this is because, there are so few

enrolled in OJT, or that the programs are directed towar severely

_ disadvantaged clientele and, as a result, prime sponsors have built

in supportive.servicep that have i)creased the, overall Costs.

Table 10

Cost Per Slot by Type of Program --

Five Bay Area Prime Sponsors

Type of

Program Slots Cost

Cost Per

Slot

' All Programs 534.2 $5,771,746 $1101

C.R. Training 1247 1,843,277 1,447

OJT 106 272,205 2,568

YETP Wok0Experience 568 '647,470 1,140

Trans. Services . 785 242,470 309

Career Awareness N. 2168 1,508,155 696

YCCIP Work Experience ' 441 1; -690, 488 2,473

490'

11
As can be seen,-YCCIP work experience'is a good deal more

expensive than-that funded under YETP and..iswell over $1000 per

.

1 . , .- sldt more than \thelaverage:cost-per-slot,for both programs.

,

. . . When YCCIP and YETP work experience are cpmbined with career

. . awarenesi.trainin\g (which contains work experj.ence components), the

/

results show that -well over half tie enrollees in both programs

(55.8 pel'Eent) are,reCeiVing some form of work experience, and that

the funds expended for work experience equal 46 percent of all the

funds allocated, for the two programs. .The.cost per

, slot i)t-,t.he

combined YETP -YCCIP work eXperience programs is $758. ..

, ? 1 N.

Planned Vs. Actual

primb sponsor performance in meeting planned enrollments and

. _,f4rrainations is discussed under'the,following four topics: (4.), Overall Ehrollmtfit; (2) Program Mix; (3) Target Groups; and (4) Termin

ions.

Overall Enrollment .

,--- Because of tl3e late implementation of fiscal year.1978--

activities, overall enrollments for all five prime sponsort- lagged L.-!:-J

during the fi.Irst two quarters of the year, but, by the end of the

fourth quarter, actual YETP enrollments were well above planned

4 p for two primes (Marin and Santa Cara) , and just about even with

planned'for the remaining three primes. YCCIP ehrolfmentswere

above planned for,three primes (Oakland, Santa Qiara and Sonoma)

and about eveh for San Francisco and Marin.

There were no clear'answprs,to the question: "How did you

Adjust to the delayed prograetillementation for FX 1978 ?," but.it
o 4

appeared that the major adjustment was to increase the class sizes

of career awareness and classroom training projects. In San

Fra6Cisco surplus funds were used to maintain a school sponsored

summer, work experience progrm'which,..because of Proposition 13,

would have been terminated had CETA not come to the rescue.

:TheLabor Department's*September mandate to hold cumulative

spending to-131percent of FY 197.8 allocations had little effect

on the five prime sponsors, Most respondents could not even

remember receiving the order --"we get so many conflicting communications from the Feds" at'said that it would have had little

effect on their operations, because their actual expenditures were

well behind their planned,expepditures at the time.

Program Mix

Generally speaking the fiVe prime sponsors met theirplapned

enrollments by type of program, bet. there were exceptions:

e,Marin met only 42 percent of its planned enrollment'

in OJT, but went well over its planned enrollments

in career awareness and classroom training.

- Oakland also fell behind in OJT, meeting only 68

percent of its planned enrollment, and also failed

to meet its planned enrollments in YETP work

experience (82,percent) and YCCIP (71 percent).

Apparently the difference was made up in classroom

training which exceeded planned enrollments.by 32

percent.

Santa' Clara met only 82 percent of its plgnned YETP , work experience enrollment, but went well over it;

planned enrollments in career 'awareness, classroom

training and YCCIP.

Sonoma met only 69,percent of its planned enrollment

in YETP work experience, but exceeded its planned

enrollment in YCCIP.

492

v`

I
-12-1

It-appears, therefore that'failure to realize planned enrollments oocurred mainly in the OJT and work experierice categories,

and that the difference was made up by increasing enrollments in. , career awareness and classroom training projects. PriMe sponsors

blamed the shprt planning period and the difficulties involved in

negotiating with OJT and work experience sub-contractors as the

major reasons for their.failUre to meet planned OJT"and work

experience enrollments. In addition, it takes a good deal more

time to start up,OJT and Work experience, projects. Both require

a period,of job development, and work experience projects often

. require union approval and negotiations to assure high quality

projects.

Target,Groups

Targets for enrolli g members'of special population'segments

sVaried considerably ZrdiT.Lp ime sponsor to prime sponsor, with

"economically disadvantaged" the only category common to all with

respect to YETP and all except Marin with respect to YCCIP. Marin's

YETP reports' included only actual enrollments of special target

groups; planned enrollments and the, degree to which plaris were

4 accomplished Were not, includedTable 11 shows the extent to which the planned enrollme of

selected population groups were reached by the five prime sponsors..

It iS interesting to -note that three prime sponsors had no plans

for the enrollment of the handicappea, and two had no plans with

respect to welfare recipients. 'Ads does .not mean that handicapped'

individuals and welfare repipients were not enrolled by these., prime

4Q1-) t.."
-13-

sponsors' they were -- it merely means that specific numbers of

enrollees in these categories were not included in prime sponsor

plans.,

Table 11

4 Percent of Planned YETP; and YCCIP Enrollmen t by Special%. 0

Population Groups --__Five Bay Area, PrimeSponsors ',-

Prime

Sponsor

Ec.

YETP

- DA

YCCIP

'Welfare . YETP YCCIP

t. Offendirs

YETP Y CIP

.

4, Handicapped

YETP YCCIP

Marin NP .NP NP NP IN11: 88 I. INA 33

S.F. . 90 85 137 204 212 413 _ 53 0

Oakland 212 116 NP NP 15 69 NP NP

S...Clara 108 137 NP NP NP 164 NP .NP

Sonoma 98 111 100 112 91 80 NP NP ' INA:' Information not available

NP: No Plan

San Francisco failed-to meet its planned enrollment of

economically disadvantaged individuals in both YETI, and YCCIP, and

. failed lso to meet planned enrollments in several ethic categories

The reason, according to prime sponsbr-staft, is that the YoUth

Service'Office, a YETP intake program, did not become fully operational until after major recruitment for both YETP and YCCIP had

been completed. However, San Francisco was the only one of the

five prime sponsors that failed to meet planned YCCIP enrollment

of economically disadvantaged individuals.. This may have been''

because the highly strucp ired and primarily union oper ated programs

funded in San Francisco under YCCIP screened out severely dis.advantaged individuals.

1 On the whole, however, the five-prime sponsots succeeded in

meeting or exceeding their planned enrollments with respect to-most

special popUlation groupd.

494
C

IO

ti

,t

Terminations

Actual exceeded planne4 terminations to a considerable degree

-14 -.

only in Marin; actual terminations for the remaining four prime

sponsors were either close to or only slightly Over those planned., , Marin planned for 38 YETP terplinations,xbut experienced 178; the

corre§ponding figures for YCCIP were eight and 26 respectiveLy.

Most of Marin's YETP terminations were positive (as they were for

the remaining four prime sponsor's), but the majority of

terminations were negative (as they were for 1 of the

prime sponsors) -- an indication that the YCCIP program

more difficulties than its YETP counterpart.

Marin staff blamed the high YCCIP dropout rate On two'factors;

their YCCIP

remaining-,

I

experienced

(1) Failure to build into the program adequate supportive services;,

and (2) Refusal by YCCIP program,operetors to retain disadvantaged

enrollees who failed to live up to performance standards. The

high,YETP termination rate (mostly positive) was also attributed

to tko,factOfs: (1) Enrollees opting to leave the YETP program

in order ,to obtain SPEDY summer-employment jobs (where they could

receivea full forty hours of work); and (2) Enrollees opting to

i .,return to school full-time. ' 11

, - .

. The most important finding emerging from an analysis of

. aogram

.

.

. .', terminations isthat the incidence of non=positive terminations 1.-- was much higher in YCCIP than it was in YETP. Forty-two percent

of all YCCIP terminations Were non-positive, as compared to 15

percent for YETP. Non-positive YCCIP terminations accounted for

74 percent'of the total in Marine 68 percent in San,:gxancisco,

495
-15-

and 60 percent in Santa.Clara. Only in Oakland and Sohoma were the

majority of YCCIP terminations positive.

Interpretation

the abo e analysis assumes that data collected by pilme-ponsors

from program pperators are complete and accurate,- But, are they?

The truth is that no one knows for sure. Marin youth personnel

claimthat school officials are consistently late in filling out

the required enrollment forms, hus causing a9 under- reporting of

youth enrolled in the in- school program. Prime sponsor monitoring

activities have uncovered sufficient record keeping and' reporting

defi4encies.to call into question the overall accuracy of reports

redecd from program operat'ors. Regional Department of Labor

, offic4ls are openly skeptical of the reports they receive from

prime sponsors. , 4, The problem is-asp,old as employment and training. programs:

l'

, Program operators are under pressure from ptime sponsors and the

. -. Department of Labor to meet pre -set progr

. goals, and the proof

. . . .., of Whether coals are beingmet generaW c nsists of a series of

numbers -- number of completers (but what is acomplcter?), number

of Placements, number oV2ED's acquired, etc. Although few program

operators or prime sponsors deliberately falsify program records,

they understandably compile da,a yin a way-that will meke.their ,

programs look as good agFpossible: For example, in Santa Clara, a

YETI' contractor whose program was geared toward prOviding GEDS

for severely disadvantaged individuals, reported a 100 percent

-kg completion rate. Prime sponsor staff listed the program's particpants as "posktive terminations" in its quartgely report, and

.4
-16-

described the program as "exemplary" in a year-end report to the

\ Department of Labor's Director of Youth Programs. Later, however,

prime sponsor staff decided to take a close look at the program,

and found that contractor staff were setting their.own criteria,

rather than those generally recognized by the state, for the

conference of a GED diploma. In other words, the "completers" were

not receiving legitimate GEDs%

The problem is most serious with respect to outcomes data'

(enrollment data by participant characteristics and program mix is

generally reliable), and is based primarily on a lack of specUicity

) with regard to the objectives of certain pebgrams, and lack of

definition with regard to such terms-is "completer," "placement,"

and "dropout," among others. For example, what are the goals of

career exploration, programs for in-school students and is it

possible to measure the extent to which goals are obtained? What

constitutes a "completer" of an.in-school program? Perhaps because

of ehe short planning period, prime sponsors did not give sufficient

consideration'to these questions. The result is that outcomes

information concerning in7school programs and some work ATerience

programs, including those funded under YCCIP, are at best ambiguoud,

As will be't-iscussed.below, prime sponsors are giving more

attention to these questions in Planning their FY 157V program.

Their objective is to-improve the quality 4/ overall programs by

means of improved monitoring and evaluation.

Target Groups

On the whole, ,the five pr)i sponsors realized their collective

goal of enrolling economically disadvantaged youth_in YETP and

49;
-17-

At

YCCIP programs. "Wfiere prime sponsors fell short of specific goals,

P e.g., San Francisco, it was primarily because the prime sponsoi's

youth intake system had not been established at-the'time recruitment

begen. San Francisco staff expect no .problems in meeting planned

enrollments, by target group, in FY 1979.

Planned enrollment of special population groups varied from

prime sponsor to prime sponsor, reflecting local condigions'and

Youth Advisory'Council.inputs. However; there was very little

controver'sy regarding program priorities -- economically disadvantaged yodth were given the priority by all five prime sponsors.'

A problem did arise in 'Marin County where a "point system"

used for determining priorities for CETA enrollment. CETA

% applicants who are economically disadvantaged, members cif minority

groups, etc., receive higher point scores than those who are not

economically disadvantaged and members of minority groups. Those

with the highest point scores are given priority for CETA enro1,1-

ment. DOL's Regional Representative wrote A letter to Marin's

, CETA DireCtor in which he stated that in Nis opinion -- and in

, light of the Bakke decision -- Marin's poiht system was unconstitutional. The Director replied that the Department of Laborlshould

make up its mind as to whether priority should be given to the

economically disadvantaged or not. He saidJhat he saw-no

difference between Marin' point system and, for example, Oakland's

-.' requirement that only ecconomically diadvantaged individuals be ' enroly-ed in CETA programs. The Regional Office hag taken the mat er

under advisement; in the meantime, Marin's point syst4m:is still

in operation.

,17
1'

Program Differences

^-

The maici dikferenCe betweeri YETP programs and Title r youth

- programs is YETP's manAated emphasis on, in- school` youth. Very

few career exploration programs have been funded under Title I.

By contrast,'.caeer exploration accounts for 44 pe4ceht of YETP

_ enrollment.. YETP out-of-school' programs do notdiffer significahtly

I out-of-school programs. For the most part,. both

'gfoups enro ed, and the types of programs kuilded,

from Title

the target

the same. There are, oec urse, significant exceptions, e-g.,

--San Francisco's Painters' Apprenticeship Program, and programs

are

A funded, in Santa Clara fem-yoUth with drug and alcohol

The major objective of'SPEDY programs is to provide summer

//,---eMplomentfor youth; there. is not'as much emphasis in SPEDY on

:training," 'supportive services,"-"GED preparation," etc. as

there is in Title I,' YETP and YCCIP. In- school YETP participants

# in Marin County and Sonoma-transfired into SPEDY programs at the

end of the school year. On the other hand, YETP.andYCCIP programs

were funded year7round in Santa'Clara, and enrollees in these

I programs were prohibited from transferring into SPEDY. . c9"` There is note significant d fferential in wages between-the

three programs, but since!SPEDY provides full;-time jobs for youth,

. . SPEDY enrollees can earn more wages than YETP in-school4enrollees,

whose employment'is only part-tliat. This resulted in a much higher

O

.1 than expected termalnation raxe in Marin's in-schOol'YETP program,.

YETP enrollees /"preferred full-time employMent (and the

gages they w?Uld earn) to tkie part -dime employment and claSsroom

training provided by YETP.

increased

o se 490
71. ti -19-

s414.

- Theoretically, YETP gnd YCCIP *ork'experience programs emphasize

career p9eparatiOn, training in speeifi skills, and other speCial-

\

dzed services designed either to acquaint' rolleeswith_the world

of work end the options open to them, or to prep them for"

imr5pdkate fdll-timl employment. SPEDY, on-tHe other d, is

( fiye ?reas are high quality p6iition, with built -in training \'

primarily a summer job program. However, many SPEDY jobs in all',

built -in

\

N_

opportunities, and YCCIP programs in several areas have experienced

serious difficulties. The difference is'one of dMphas1,81 SPEDY

is primarily a'summer employment program, where YETP and YCCIP

are expected,to provide more than,j1ist "jobs" to their enrollees.

Thus, SPEDY jobs range froi "high quality" to"make work".posit4ons; fp: k YETPIand YCCIP strive not only to provide Oroll.ee'swith high

duality jobs across-the-board, but with deiionaAmployMent

4 . 'services As. well. The fact that the latter have not been universally . successful does not negate the intent. a4.° .icCIP has presented grime sponsors with morediffiCulties than

any of the other youth programs. Perhaps, this is because the"

entire concept of a "Youth ComMunity Conservatisn Corps" is con-::

fusing. What is its purpose T6 provide out of work youth with

jots? To improve Community facilitiesthroughout thecountry:x4

ti To train youth for , mployment? To provide youth with a sense of

pride or accomplishment through participation in,comipunity improve-

) -ment projects. To merely test the effectiveness of the'community

conservation approach in improving Ile employability of youth? Or,

isits purpose to accomplish all or any one of these-objectives?-

500
, 1.20- a

The program is extremel categorical in that the/youth enrolled -must

be employed on cOnservation projects that have tiengible,outputs andare of benefit to the/Community. Perhaps because of the short

planning period, prime sponsors have had serious problems in

implementing YCCIP and in integrating it into their overall youth

programs. YCCIP dropout rates are three times higher than those

for YETP, And several prime sponsors have stated frankly that YCCIP'

programs have been the least successful of all their youth programs. /

"et, youth referred imto the\KCCIP program ate far more'dis-

-- 4

advantaged than those enrolled in YETP. As was stated previously, ,

more YCCIP than ZETP.partiCipants.are apt to be economically dis-

.0- advantaged, members-of minority groups, high 'chool dropouts,

ex-offenders, and,unemployed at the time they enrolled in,the program.,

It appears to be another case of the most disadvantaged indivkduals

' being referred into the least effective programs% But whyre so

many YCCIP program' ineffective? Some.;of the reasons are listed

PriMe sponsors were unable to gear YCCIP pft)jects

to the needs Of specific youth. ConServation projects were designed andfunded first;, the search

for youth.to fill the,resulting slots occurred

second. The result was that the most disadvantaged

and least motivated youth were enrolled in the program.

YCCIP subcontractors were unwillipg to retain youths

'whose performances on the job were sub-standard.

Inadequate supportive services were built-in to the/

programs.

Perhaps, most important, contracts were awarded to

program operators who did not have the capabilities,to

deliver _the- required. expertise and supervision.

411

501

e A
Prime sponsors are very much aware of these deficiencies and,

with respect'to FY 1919 funding, are taking action to correct them

(See Planning).

It should be emphasized that not all 'CLIP projects were sub-

(

standard. San Frandisco's YJChance program, which involved local

bu ding trades unions, is a model of its kind, and al other

proje s in all five prime sponsor areas are above-average. It is

interesting to note, however, that in areas where YCCIP programs

are above average, e.g., San Francisco, less disadvantaged youth

are enrolled. it appears, therefore, that enrollee screening

becomes stricter 4s the quality of programs increase.

t

.Youth Preferences

youth interviewed at the work sites did not have strong prefaal erencesfor one-or more CETA youth programs otgr Others; in fact

f''

_ most knew nothing about' CETA programs 'bther than those in which

they. were enrolled. SPEDY is the best known youth program in all

five areas, and in several areas (notably Marin), youth opted to

drop out of YETP work experience programs in order to accept fulls -time.SPEDY jobs. YCCIR drop out rates in Santa Clara, San Francisco

and Marin appear to indicate that YCCIP is the least popular

programr however, the high dropout rates may be due more to the

characteristics of the pattici,pants enrolled in YCCIP (as a whole,

YCCIP enrolle-es.were_ more disadvantaged than their counterparts in

YETP) than to "y?uth program.preferences."

502
-22-

FY 1979 Planning

There are several indications that the "planning process" has

improved a great deal-between FY 19.7,8' and FY 1979, and that,prime

sponsor youth staffs have achieved a much better understanding of

the term "knowledge development. Three factors account for the

improved planning:

1. 'Time: Prime sponsors have had more time to.pran their

.'''FITr979 programs. Planning in all five areas began in

June, and as result, everything did not have to be

done oif'a crash basis.

a 2.' Federal.Instructions: The confusion concerning Federal

instructions existed in FY 1978 hAs been eliminated;

thus, prime sponsor staff have a much betr idea of

what is expected of them.

y , 3, Experience: CETI., youth staffs, which' were hastily

assembled to paste together programs in FY 1978,

have had one year's experience in operating programe,

and the evidence indicates that they have learned e a lot.

"K

pe

th

ye

The'third-reason is at east as important as the first two.

lbwlec ge development" may not have the same meaning to CETA youth

sonnel'as it does to Congress and the Department of Labor, but

re can be no doubt that staff knowledge has increased over the

r: CETA youth personnel now know what they don't know. This is

most's,apParent in two areas: YCCIP and in-school programs which

invo ve LEA agreements, both of which will be discussed below..,

liA Ogreements 40

After one year of administering in-school YETP prOgrams,CEIFA

personnel hare come to realize that the concept of "career explor-

. ation"'is extremely vague, and that the putcomes of such programs

are difficult to measure. The result is that prime sponsors are

attempting to negotiate LEA agreements that are more specific

3-

J

I

503.

-*7
6 -23-

r.4garding services for in-school enrolle000 This has been, no easy

chore, since school Ipersonnel'resent the attempt by "non-professionals"

to specify the "educational"'services that should be provided to

"their" students, and also view CETA as a channel through which

county and city governments can exert influence on "independent"

school diatridts. .Nevertheless, CETA staffs (especiallyhosejn

Sonoma, Marin andoSanta Clara) have pushed strongly for more

specific LEA agi.eements, and, perhaps, because of Proposition 13,

.which has. reduced school budgets throtghout the state,-their-chances

for success appear.to be good: Sonoma'g'agryement, for example,

, provides for the following:-

..subsidized employment opport sties for a minimum

of 275 participants in a variet of career work exper-,

ience prograMs. fn addition to the skills training and

supervision inherent in each job placement, certain ancillary

services will be provided by qualified staff,. These

c must include, but not be limited to, career counseling

and guidance, local labor market counseling, involvement

in a specific program promoting the'education7to-work

transition,' literacy and bi-lingual training, attainment

of_high school equivalency certificates when more appropriate

to that student's goalS than a continued academic program,

counseling regarding additional employment training

,opportiinities, and the teaching of basic job seeking

The agreement also calis,for specific performance standards:

1% ...completion rates of 85 percent or. higher (or 23e, Or

more participants).

...placement or transition to unsubsidized employment of.20

'percent of graduating, seniors.

...overall rate of positive terminations

, of 90 percent or

higher (or 20,9r more participa ,pts).

The agreement's t -five provisions call for the Sonoma,

County Office of.Educati provide the follod.ng:

4

1/450 4
724-

(a) A list ofwork sites used throdkhout the course of the

programr the name of the supervisor, the youth (by ; 'name) placed at that site,and an approximate breakdown

of the percentage of supervised vs. nonsupervi--Sed time

for,the participant; and the approximate time spent in

skills training'vs. routine tasks.

(b) A brief record of each student's, participation in each

of the activities deSigned to provide the ancillary

services, and a detailed account of how, those services

werwprovided...

(c) IA form for each participant signed by a school-based ". counselor certifying that the placement for this student

was relevant to his or her educaUon.and career goals.

(d),Documentation, as requested by the prime sponsor, to

assure that this program is serving those most in need,

and that technically eligible youth placed incthis program

will be those least capable of finding unsubsidized

employment.

(e) Documentation that each participant in YWE and tither

YETP prgograms who are enrolled in a regular.or

continuation,high school, is concurrently enrolled for

5 units,ofASCademic 'credit in Work Experience Education.

Not all'priMe sponsors may be as successful as-Sonoma in

executing as detailed an LEA agreement, but they,are trying.

YCCIP

c

The whole concept of YCCIP is under scrutiny by most prime

sponsor youth staffs. The purpose is to devise some role for YCCIP

-,Z75ich Telatesto the needs of specific youth., In addition, prime

sponsors are looking for YCCIP subcontractors that have the

necessary resources to'accomp/ish conservation projects, provide

skills training to participantiiJand supervise` enrollees on the job.

In Santa Clara, for example, no longer will CBOs be given preference

in the award of YCCIP contracts; rather the attempt is. being made

to go the San Francisco route, that is, to inttolve the building

trades and other unions in YCCIP contract.. In Marin, a greater

505
-25-

attempt will be made to match enrollee, preference with' YCCIP work

or, experience slots, and increased couns4ling and other. Supportive

services will 6e built into all contracts.

ei$J Summary

Planning for FY 1979 was a good deai more realistic in the

five prime spons4areas, and special attention has been given to

c the improvement of in-school and YCCIP programs. Of courde p.rime

sponsors are'still dependent on the performance of subcontractors,

and very ofte , political rather than programatic considerations,

dictate which subcontractors will be awarded YETP and YCCIP contracts.

Another factor which vitiates sound planning is staff turnover

.(which will be discussed in more detail in Section II). Sonoma

has lost three key youth staff members (including.its Youth Director),

and Oakland (a severely troubled CETA) has lost its'YouthDirector.

The participation of youth on Youth Adviiory Councils is

improving, but the overall impact, of youth'participation is still

negligible.

506
O -26-

I1., ISSUES

4. The issues discussed beloi4 do not pertain to program planning,,

mplementation or evaluation, but the degree-to which they are

A

resolved could have asignificant effect on overall program

performance, as well as on whether Federal objectives are realized.

The first deals with the political vulArability-af CETA prime

sponSors, and their propensity to undergo periodic radical changes

in personnel, and the second deals with "the Federar-presence,"

or the extent eta which Federal administrators can influence local

political entities in order to make certain that the intent of

Congress is at least given adequate consideration at the local

level. Although these issues go beyond,the Administration of

_- YEDPA, they are nevertheless pertinent to the FY 1`978 administration

of YEDPA programs.

Musical Chairs te`

'SITI6e the commencement, of this case study nine months ago,

three of the five Bay Area CETA Directors whosAvoperations-,have

been under review have been either fired or left their jobs for

otherreasons. One of the best known and respected of CETA

Dirctors, Oaklands Juan Lopez, was dismissed, allegedly for paying'

unatth6rized overtime to CETA employeei, and is now under investigationfor embezzlement of funds. Santa Clara's Direc -tor, Juan

Pinon, became caught in the middle of a "growth-non-growth"'

'factional battle in San Jose and was fired by the City's Board of

Supervisors. Sonoma's Garli. Wilkensonresigned to accept employment

elsewhe'e. In San Francisco, the city's CETA Director, Eunice

Elton, has thus far survived apower struggle between the Mayor

.11
-27-

r. , and the Board'of Supervisors which fticused on administration of

the CETA program.

Of even more importance to the implementation of YEDPA, two

Youth Directors have left their jobs.... Peg Rogers, Oakland's come

petent and experienced Youth Director, has resigned, and SCnoma's

Robert Gomez has been fired, allegedly for showing favoritism

(in hiring CETA employees), to members of his religious sect. Other

key youth staff have-also left the Sonoma program, including'the

two staff members in charge of school-CETA relations and knowledge

development.

The Lopez, Pinon and Gomez in4dents made headlines in'Bay

Area newspapers, and.Ms. Elton'S problems 'also received a good.deal:

of press coverage. The Oakland situation was aggra1ated by a

"seminar" conducted by the National Urban Coalitioh and the New

------, Oakland Comtittee', which resulted in the (following front page,

, 49

tHreer-column headline in the Oakland'Tribune: "Youths Call CETA '

, Jobs 'Dead Ends'." It's difficult to identify any benefit than

emerges from these so called "open seminars," other than to provide

reporVers with' fodder for sensational newspaper stories (after

all, the allegations made by the disepchanted recipients of

government largesse were not investigated). It's a good 'deal easier,

however, to identify the adverse effects the seminars have on the

0 morale of CETA employees, and on the public image of employmdnt

and -training programs.

When,viewed in this light, the nationally established goals,

for CETA programs seem (to local officials) almost pristine in

their innocense and only marginally related to the daily pressures

Faced I'-CETA Directors and their staffs at the local level. This,'

b 508
-28-

coupled with Oe frequent turpover of key personnel, makes

comprehensive planning and the sustained implementation of plans

A very difficult' indeed. The repladements for Oakland's Peg Rogers

and SonOma's Robert ,Gomez are no doubt competent individuals, but

they are new at their jobs, have ideas of their own, and are

4 bound to make changes before the results of .the original plans are

even analyzed.

The foregoing introduces elements into an on-going assessment

that can't be ignored. These elements which are primarily of a political nature, but which also involve the vulnerability of )3r

staff, raise a very basic question: Are national goals realistic

in the light of local political pressures? Certainly CETA performance cannot be assessed in a vacuum. The effects of local

politic 1 maneuvering and staff vulnerability must be taken into

cons' eration. jot The answer to the question regarding the realization

of national goals may very well depend on the effectivenes§ of co' federal affortt to influence local political entities, which brings

us to the Second issue -- The Federal Presence.

The Federal Presence

The personification of the funding agency, the U.S. Department

of Labor, is the prime sponsor's Region9._Offide Representative.

The extent to which Federal guidelines are followed and Federal

objectives achieved pretty much depends on the effectiveness of

"Fed.Reps" and their regional office supervisors. The effectiveness

of Fed Reps, in turn, depends on their "clout," or ability-to

influence the operations of local prime sponSors. At first glarice,

Regional Office clout would seem to be a given, but it must be

5049
eft

ti

= remembered that CETA, along with other revenue sharing legislation,

constitute a transfer of authority from the Federal to the local

-29-

level. SET s are extensions of local governments, and CETA directors

are respons le to Mayors andCotnty Boards of Stpervisors -- not

x

to the Department of Labor. They are,. Serefore, extremely

sensitive to anything that resembles.excess "Federal interference."--

Regional persohnel know only to well that local' government

` ,4.°

officials, including CETA Directors, hav"e a direct line to Washington,

either through their Congressmen, or by=calling National office

personnel, over the heads of their regional counterparts. Furthermore, CETA,Director usually report directly to Mayors or Boards

of Supervisors, whereas their Regional Representatives are at one

of the lowest levels of the Labor Department's management hierarchy.

All of this makes Regional Dffi e adMinistration-of CETA programs

)

Z

eKgeedinglOifficult, but effe tive Regional administration would

not be impossible if the role of the-Regional Office was well

defined, field representatives had more expertise in all types(of

CETA rograms, and if decisions,,made at, the' regional level were

supported at the.National revel. '

1 . The fact is'that the role of the Regional Office has never

been well defined, and that since the advent of CETA, Regional

Office "clout" has declined considerably. One of the major reasons

for this is that regional.personnel have been.divorded,frori

"programming;" the line of communications from the,Nationa to the

Regional Office is piirely "administrative." Guidelines, reg-

, ulations and other communications reach thg. RegiopalOffice from

the Director of Field Operations -- not, say, the Director of

510
-30-

Yqpth Programs. Regional officials are expected to transmit National

Office "instructions" to prime sponsors and check to see whether

the instructions are followed. The role is purely administrative 4--

a."paper exchange:" 11 In pi.eparation.for writing this report, a meeting was held at

the regional office with five Regional Representatives and one

'Supervisor. When asked to describe--the problems, involved in monitoring CETA operations, one Fedegal Representative put it this way:

"There used to be a Federal 'presence, but that was when

the Federal Government had more authority over program

contractors. If some agency in Chicago was having trouble

we went in there and helped them -- sometimes we spent

weeks working with the agency on-site. Now, we're just

high paid messanger boys."

With respect to YEDPA, Regiona'l Office personnel received

the guidelineS for YETP and YCCIP at the same time as the prime

sponsors. Questions from prime sponsors arrived while regional

-personnel were acquainting themselves with the documents. In most

cases, the questions had to be referred to Washington, thus

buttressing the image of the Regional Office as nothing more than

a conduit for cqrmunication with the National Office. When regional

officials went out on the limb-and made decisions on their own,

they were often reversea by the National Office (See Report

Number 1).

Other factors cited by regional staff which inhibit strong

Regional Office leadership are:

Fed Reps must deal with CETA Direotors, Eunice

Elton and Juan Lopez, who are often called to Washington

to advise National Office personnel. "It's difficult

for the lowly Rep," one staffer said, "to'influence

suchpsestigeous and knowlegeable people:"

J
-31-' %

In pre-CETA days, the Regional Office emphasis was on'

.prOviding tecjmical-issistance(to program operators in

specific program areas. Since theremphasis has switched

to administration, the expertise to provide such technical

assistance no longer exists in the Regional Office, or

if it does exist, it ts dormant. The result is that

regional personnel have nothing of value to offer prime

sponsors.

Regional monitoring of CETA prRgramming consists primarily

of reviewing prime sponsor reports. Few. Fed Reps have

observed a YETP or YCCIP program on-site. "We have no

time," one staffer said. '"Most of our time is spent

with CETAs whb are experiencing serious problems.q

All of this leads to the unhappy conclusion ,that The Federal

Presence, as it is represented by.the Regional dffide, is .1at best

weak, and at worst non-existent,. This j.s true despite the fadt

that the quality of regional personnel is high, and that staff would

prefer a thore,active and substantive role.

The situation could be improved if National Office personnel

insisted that all queries from prime sponsors be di'rected to the

Regional Office, and if Regional, Representatives were given crash

courses in all' types of CETA programming. In addition, Regional

personnel should receive communications from the National office

far in advance of CETA prime sponsors, and be thoroughly briefed

on their contents. Finally, the decisions Made by regional

I '

personnel should be supported by the National Office.

5 t2

I

.4
1

4

A

I

41-

CY,

ts

.0 5

A°

410

513

h.

to'
o

0

.

Characteristics

Mal

Female

White

Non -White

Spanish American

Under 18

Economically D.A.

Table A

YETP Enrollee Characteristics

Five Bay Area Prime,Sponsors

1,686 261

San Francisdo

Per-' er-

. No. cent No. cent

, High School Dropout

High School Grad,

High School Stud.

Unemployed

Under Employed

- Other

Veteran , AFDC/PA

Offender

Handidapped

s Drug Offender

Other

489

Oakland

'PerNo. cent

368 1,*664 //'-'\4,468

Sonoma Santa-Clara _Total

Per- Per- Per -

No. cent 'No. 'cent No. 'cent

/25 43.0 108 41.4 271 55.4 14 51.8 ,806 48.4

961 57.0 153 .58.6 218 4.6 180 48.2 85b 51.6

163 09.7 159 60.9 115 23.5 221 60,.01 445 26.7

1,325 78.6 80 30.7 374 76.5 61 16.6 409 24.6

198 11.7 22 08.4 0 : 86 23.4 810, ,48:7

753 '44.7 130 49.8 167 34.2 263 71.5 917 55.1

1,379 81.8 208 _79.7 489 160.0 '341. 93.2 1,31a 79.2

353 20.9 31 11.9 305 62.4 18 04.9, 491, 29.6

188 11.2 75 20:7 0 ---- 30' OT..2 158 09.5

972. 57.7 125 '147.9 184 37.6 289 7U75 819 49.2

527 31.3 111 42.5 489 100.0 342 92,45 830 49.9

9 01.0 07 ,02.7 0 15 04.1 27 01.6

1,150, 68.2 143 54..0 0 ---- 11 03.0 P801J 48.5

4 - - -- 2 -01.0 24 04.9 0 6

567 33.6 50 19.2 226- 46.2 23.1 710 42.7

180 10.7. 21 08.0 51" 10.4 32 08.7 216 13.0

135 '08.0 15 05.7 11 02.2 .21 05.7 05.6

NA NA NA . NA NA NA NA NA 'NA' NA

5 .01.9 0 rr-- 6 01.6 82 04.9

2,098 ,47.0

2,370 53.0

1,103

2,249

1,116

2,230

3,737

24.7

50.3

25.0

49.9

83:6

'1,200 26.9

451 10.1

2,389 53.5

2,299\ 51.5

58 01.3

2,111 47.2

36, 01.0

1,638 36.7

500 11.2

276 06.2

NA ----INA

97 02.2

.514

-0 5 it-
516

Characteristics,

Male

Female

-White

Non-White

Spanish American

Under 18

Economically D.A.

School Dropout

H h School Grad.

High School Stud.

Unemployed

Under EmployedOther

Veteran

AFDC/PA

Offender

Handicapped

Drug Offender

Other

Table B

YCCIP.Enrollee Characteristics

-Five Bay Area Prime Sponsors,

136'

San Francisco

39

Marin

89

Oakland

,/ 50

Sonoma

133

Santa Clar Ipotal

441

Percent

Per- ' No. cent

PerNo. cent

PerNo. cent

PerNo. cent

PerNo. cent No.

106 77.9 15 38.5 58 69.9 42 84.0 114 85.7 335 76.0

30 . 22.1 24 61.5 25 31.1 8 16.0 19 .14.3 106 24.0

21 15.4 22 56.4 1 01.2 18 36.0 35 26.3 97 22.0

84 6:8 13 33.3 76 91.6 11 22.0 18 13.5 202 45.8

31 22.8 4 10.3 6 07.2 21 .42.0 80 60.2 142 32.2

55 40.4 25 64.1 47 56.2 21 42.0_ 79 59.4 227 51.4,

115 84.6 26 ..,66:7 83 100.10 48 96.0 123 92.5 395 89.6,

95 69' , 07.7 22 2'6.5 10 20.0 77 57.9 207 46.9

41 8 20.5 15 18.1 20 40.0 10 07.5 94 21.3

0 24 61.5 46 55.4 19 38.0 45 33.8 134 30.4

123 9 39 100.0 83 100.0 43 86.0 87 65.4 375 85.0

> 5 03.7 0 -,---- . 0 5 10'.0 4 03A 14 03.2

8 05.9 0 0 2 04.0 42 31.6 52 11.8

1 1 01.2 0 ---- 1 3 01.1

49 36.0 7 17.9 42 50.6 9' 18.0 54 40.6 161 36.5

33' 24.3 7 17.9( 7 08.4 4 08.0 23 17.3 74 16.8

0 07.7 3' 03.6 0 0 ---- 6 01.3

NA ----. NA NA NA ---- NA NA __..... 1 1 01.2 3 06.0 10 30.3 15 03.4

, 4
/ .

7

IA Table C

Enrollment by Type of Program (YETP)

Five Bay,Area Prime Sponsors )

. Prime

Sponsor

I

. -,Total- ' C.R.

Enrollment Irraininq OJT

Work

Experience

Career

Awareness

. Trans.

'Services

., °Other

PerNo. cent

PerNo. cent No.

Percent

a No.

Percent

Per -

No. cent No. cent

San Francisco 1,704 482 28.3 74 04.3 0 00.0 1148 67.4 0 00.0 70 0

Marin 351 105 29.9 5.'01.4 103 29.3 90' 25.6 48 1.3.7 0. 0

. Oakland 489 186 38.0 26 05.3 93 19.0 144 29.4 40 08.2 0 q, 0

, 'Sonoma ')78 70 lg.5 01'' 01.4 09 02.4 214 56.6 84 22.2 0 0 1 L., Santa Clara 1,979 L979 431 21.8 00 00:0 363 18.3 572 28.9 613. 31.0 0 0 1 'TOTALS 4,901 1274 26.0. 106 02.2 568 11.6 2128 44.2 785 16.0/ 0 0

)

5 I 8

/

i
001.0..

Table-D

Expenditures by Type of Program (YETP)

Five Bay Area Prime Sponsors

Prime

Sponsor

Total C. R-. Expenditures Training OJT

PerNo. cent No.

San

Francisco 1,416,807 669,245 47.2 *226,494

Marin 197,721 22,577'11.4 12,062

Oakland* 927,682 284,768 30.7 33,100

Sonoma 526,097 222,562 42.3 549

Santa

Clara 31,612,951 644,125 39.1 0

TOTAL . 4,681,258 1,843,277 39,4' 272,205

Percent

16.0

06.1

03.6

00.0

---- 05.8

a Work

Experience

.

i Career

Awareness

. Trans.

Services

PerNo. cent

PerNo. cent

. Per-

, No. cent

0 521,068 36.8 0

120,543 61.0 40,068 20.6 1,877 01.0

198,778 21.4 139,161 15.0 104,204 '' 2 .1, 5,946 01.1 257,278 48.9 39,762 07.6 I 322,203 20.0 549,996 34.1 96,627 06.0

647,470 13.8 1,508,155 32.2 242,470 05.2

*Oakland spent $167,646 for "enrollee services," about 04 percent of total.

2,u

52!
-37-

Table E

Enrollment by Type of Program (YCCIP) --

Five Bay Area Prime Sponsors

Prime SponsoY Total Enrollment Work Experience Percent

San'FrancisCo 136 136. 160

Marin 39 39 100

Oakland 83 83 100

'Sonoma 50 t50 100

Santa Clara 133 133 100

TOTAL 441 441 100

Ex

ti Table F

enditurei by Type of Program (YCCIP)

Five.Bax Area Prime Sponsor's

Total

Prime Sponsors- Expenditures

Work

Experience Percent Other

ea iercent

,San Francisco $ '317,885 $317,885 100 0 - - Marin 64,188 61,971 96.5 2,217 03.5

Oakland (247,113 247,13 100 0

S..onoma 93,642 93,642 100

Sahta Clara 367,660 367,6N lob - - TOTAL $1,090,488 1,088,27.1 99.8 2,.217 01.2

5-22

t,,
1.... 1UULV IVI/L:lb

with 7. dist 'utions

in parenthc . -.. e Prime

Sponsor -

P

ICULUILML C.) , a) u4 r; °.

...44c 4.1 c, c .... v, v, . I

`,11,1 '4 rZ . T,'-' N o a) c 4,-, r.) .-I °.-I ..-114 14 C U) (0 0 1 1-1 +.I 0 W W 14 CL. 1.4 co 4

'CIHr -11iL L))vji CiW14 ifll OW

1

I eo oo O 0

14 .-1 th C

(0 ..-I

1.21 11.04 OH

.--, u - °I

il,' 7; it co c c ...-, co N o 01 V+ 1:: 0 (111 tg .2 tw l0 .-I W 14

18 (>1' 2, ?1.. 3 0 r..=t4 u<

' o

(:) tP4 to .-1 n& P. &

al C W . 'a?, :5

. 00 0

rApciiv J. LLL C,..

S. F _

r

yccui

YETP

I . 0 134' 134,_

i7Olf

______ 0

of*

as48

0 600 0 0 o_i

CO

0

Co

o

1 4>

$7

. 0

CO

0

. Co)

p

61

5tberr

ite414.07

1,

oat i

. /9Z 7z(

NV, ,71I 0 0 'ION o 0

_ 04 0) 0) du.$) of

224 .0 0 As,

/1/4Ptin

04r/4

iYCCIP

YETP

,

! 0 1. _0_ _ /0, 5-. /031

0 __ct 0 o'

1.0 lig 0

4

34

MO (0), 6) (0) .- G)

0 0 (144 o; 0

*do ao iti 0

, 1 tuo, 07

A 142-41643 0 '41452-1

YCCIP

_ YETI

. _a _ P 8.3: 0,: 0 _0 0

, lc' z /3 o Me/ 10 0

_____ g3__ lig 7

400 0

0 at 24 0_______o_i__.__p 43:00.0.M14) ago &ta )

06 Ak6 te '4 /Am or"

0

MO

gz4q6

24

btbk fga2

-*JIM/41,

0111/1//1

YCCIP

YETP

0, O SO)

. ,

70 I 1

0 4,0 10 O

' (.

-0 4711 81 0

. A .0. 0 0 0

0 572.0 0

.

. /

.5.6

A (MO)

0 o.fi._ _O.. _"0:_.:..e. 0.

(114) 6I) ee) 64.11i 0.4) 6)

42' se M4 o zsai; Ma o

. 00 41 I 4 c2x c a 0_ 0

743 aw -4>

,

.

;

.

.

.

,02'''

097

547,60

hP4fr/

. 9 4 ,

378

63

leiti

434.e., ' .5 .C.

. ...

YCCIPYETP

. .

, a, 0 P33

131 0 343

.

Ave