ED 203 073

TITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATE

NOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

DOCUMENT RESUME

CE 029 123

The Consolidated Youth Employment Program (CYEP).

Planning and Early Implementation. Design and

Organization Alternatives. Youth Knowledge

Development Report 9.1.

Employment aad Training Administration (DOL),

Washington, D.C. Office of Youth Programs.

May 80

247p.: For related documents see CE 029 106.

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC 20402 (Stock No.

029-014-00183-0, $7.00).

EDRS PRICE ME01/PC10 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Definitions: remonstration Programs: Employment

Potential: *Employment Programs: Enrollment; Federal

Legislation: Federal Programs: Job Skills: *Job

Training: Linking Agents: Outcomes of Education;

Program Administration: Program Costs: *Program

Design: Program Development: *Program Effectiveness:

Program Improvement: Vocational Education; Work

Experience: *Youth Employment: *Youth Programs

IDENTIFIERS *Consolidated Youth Employment Program

ABSTRACT

This Consolidated Youth Employment Program

demonstration (CYEP) , implemented in eight prime sponsor areas in

fiscal 1979, consolidated the activities and services formerly

provided by the Summer Youth Employment Program, the Youth Community

Conservation and Improvement Projects, and the Youth and Employment

Training Programs. The fundamental elements of this two-year

demonstration program include a simplified planning framework to

utilize fully the flexibility resulting from consolidation of summer,

school-year, and year-round and in- and out-of-school programs: an

individualized service delivery approach: reports on participants,

services, an expenditures: specification of new individual

performance requirements: local establishment of benchmarks of

achievement to assess progress of participants towards basic

competencies required for successful employment: emphasis on linkages

with education and vocational education: and experimentation with

flexibility in allowance payments. The first two quarterly

assessments indicate the basic soundness of the notions involved in

CYEP, but also the challenges in implementation. Problems and

recommendations for solving problems in the areas of program

planning, administration, and enrollment were discussed. (Related

youth knowledge and development reports are available separately

through ERIC--see note.) !MN)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document. ***********************************************************************
U.S. Department of Labor

Ray Marshall, Secretary

Employment and Training Administration

Ernest G. Green, Assistant Secretary for

Employment and Training Administration

Office of Youth Programs

Material contained in this publication is

in the public domain and may be

reproduced. fully or partially, without

permission of the Federal Government.

Source credit is requested but not

required. Permission is required only

to reproduce any copyrighted material

contained herein.

3
YOUTH KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT REPORT 9.1

THE CONSOLIDATED YOUTH

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM (CYEP)

PLANNING AND EARLY IMPLEMENTATION

OFFICE OF YOUTH PROGRAMS

May 1980
OVERVIEW

The Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act created wo new youth

programs operated by prime sponsors in addition to the Summer Youth

Employment Program and youth activities under Title II (yo th account for

half of Title II participants). These new categortical programs--Youth

Community Conservation and Improvement Project and Youth Employment and

Training Programs--were needed to increase the level of services for youth

which had declined under Title II from 62 percent in fiscal 1975 to 52

percent in fiscal 1977, to test alternative approaches (tangible workoriented projects in the case of YCCIP vs service enriched and schooloriented work-experience under YETP), and to promote linkages with schools

and community-based organizations as well as other institutional changes.

It was recognized from the outset that these new categorical programs, with

their differing age and eligibility requirements, delivery approaches,

service mixes, and reporting requirements, would complicate local planning

and delivery. The new programs were intended as temporary measures to

promote change and to provide a basis for the subsequent development of a

comprehensive and coordinated youth policy.

YEDPA was initially authorized for one year only. In the reauthorization

of CETA in 1978, ne new programs were extended for two more years, but

with the clear intent that they would ultimately be consolidated. The

administrative provisions of CETA under Title I, Section 127(c), required

the Secretary of Labor to report to the Congress, no later than March 1,

1980, proposals for integration and consolidation of the programs established by Part A of Title IV (Youth Employment and Demonstration

Programs) and Title VII (Private Sector Opportunities for the Economically

Disadvantaged) with the program established by Title II (Part B -

Section 214 - Services for Youth). Section 214(b) of Title II states that

the Secretary of Labor shall insure that each prime sponsor's plan for

serving eligible youth includes provisions for coordinating activities with

activities under Part A of Title IV. In addition, the CETA legislation

(Section 401) authorizes "a broad range of coordinated employment and

training programs for eligible youth in order to provide effectively for

comprehensive employment and training services to improve their future

employability and to explore and experiment with alternative methods for

accomplishing such purposes."

To fulfill this mandate for integration,, consolidation and comprehensive

service, the Office of Youth Programs, (through its Office of Community

Youth Employment Programs, mounted a Consolidated Youth Employment Program

demonstration in 8 prime sponsor areas in fiscal 1979. Each prime sponsor

was provided a single youth grant which included the funds otherwise

available under SYEP, YETP and YCCIP which were to be coordinated in

planning and delivery with Title II youth expenditures.)

Consolidation under CYEP was more than a paper exercise. It represented an

attempt to try out some new concepts and to redirect and redesign longaccepted practices and policies in local CETA administration. The

fundamental elements of CYEP were:
o A simplified planning framework to fully utilize the flexibility

resulting from consolidation, consciously deciding on the mix of summer,

year-round and school-year programs, determining the appropriate types of

services for different age groups and significant segments and allocating

funds between in-school and out-of-school youth on a national basis;

o An individualized service delivery approach providing a mixture

of services to youth as needed rather than based on categorical exigencies,

with multi-year employability development plans and units of services

arranged as building blocks of these plans;

o A new MIS and reporting system to provide more useable information by combining reports on participants, services and expenditures,

to serve as a foundation for the individualized treatment approach, and

over time, to simplify reporting requirements and reduce paperwork;

o New individual performance requirements for participants spelled

out in service agreements indicating the standards for continued participation;

o Benchmarks of achievement established locally to assess progress

of participants towards the basic competencies required for successful

employment;

o Emphasis on linkages with education and vocational education,

i.e., expanding the reach of local CETA programs to serve all youth in

need; and

o Experimentation with flexibility in allowance payments and with

the use of FLSA exemptions for young teenagers with no previous work

experience.

CYEP was initiated as a two-year demonstration. Its purpose was to

carefully study the feasibility of these ideas and the responses of the

local employment and training system.

On January 10, 1980, President Carter announced the Administration's

proposal for a new youth initiative which would provide funding for

concentrated remedial academic instruction at the secondary level as well

as expanded employment and training efforts for youth. The employment and

training proposals were based on the concepts developed in CYEP. Title I

of the proposed Youth Act of 1980 would consolidate YETP, YCCIP, and SYEP

into a single basic grant provided by formula to prime sponsors. Under

this grant, there would be individualized services in a developmental

sequence. Benchmarks of employability development would be implemented

locally. The managemen* information system would track individual services

and performance over time. Flexibility would be provided in the payment of

allowances to eliminate the income maintenance preoccupation of employment

and training programs.

There are also several features of the Act which would supplement or modify

the CYEP concepts. First, the Act envisions a bifurcated local system,

with the consolidated basic grant bringing youth up to levels of employability and maturity where they are ready for intensive training for

ii
career entry or transitional employment in a career ladder opportunity.

CYEP initially integrated Title IIB services to youth into the same system

which covered individuals up to age 22. T!ie approach recommended in the

legislation makes more sense conceptually and administratively, and CYEP

guidelines can be easily adapted.

Second, the Act alters eligibility requirements, allowing 10 percent of

funds to be used for comprehensive services to youth who are not within the

income eligibility range (85 percent of the lower living standard), Some

eligibility determination has to be made on the basis of needs defined by

somethin: other than income. Again, this is easily drafted into CYEP and

is consistent with the individualized approach as well as the notion of

extending limited services to a larger portion of the youth population.

Third, the proposal introduces the notion of an incentive grant approach

for achieving national objectives. Prime sponsors would be offered

matching funds if they implemented specific activities meeting national

guidelines, for instance, replicating approaches found to be effective in

the demonstration programs under YEDPA. While the activities would have to

meet the guidelines, they would be integrated into and operate under the

same parameters as the basic grants at the local level. Incentives are an

alternative to national strictures which reduce the local flexibility

provided by consolidation; the incentive approach is supportive of and

consistent with CYEP and can be prototyped in CYEP sites.

Fourth, the Act provides discretionary resources for capacity building at

the local level. There is a critical need to improve the quality of

substantive services as well as the qualifications of employment and

training system personnel. CYEP has focused on planning and management

issues in the early implementation phase, but the individualized service

agreement approach is posited on the notion there will be improved quality

in the services offered as well as increased ability to adopt services to

individuals.

While legislation is necessary to thoroughly implement the Administration's

recommendations, it is possible to move in these directions under current

authorization. Greater consolidation can be achieved by altering

regulations and removing separate reporting requirements for the different

categorical programs since this is clearly the Administration's policy.

The "bifurcation" into a developmental system for teenagers and a career

entry system for adults and mature young adults can be achieved by policies

regarding enforcement of maintenance of effort for youth under Title IIB.

Discretionary resources will be increasingly available as current demonstration projects are completed and yield results concerning what works

best; these resources can then be used as incentive grants for the

replication of effective approaches. Discretionary resources can also be

utilized for capacity-building. Finally, the use of 10 percent of funds

for "above-income" youth can be accomplished within the YETP authorization

simply by loosening regulations which restricted the currently authorized

10 percent exemption to cases matching structured experimental conditions.

It is the policy of the Department of Labor and the Office of Youth

Programs to move in these directions administratively if there is not

legislation. CYEP is, therefore, a demonstration of central importance.

iii

7
It is already developing the new MIS systems, benchmark standards, and

formats for individual service agreements and the like which will be

needed. The lessons learned about implementation will ease the process for

other prime sponsors. More than this, however CYEP can be used to try out

the new directions in the Administration's proposals which were not in the

original design--focusing the consolidated local system on developing youth

to the point of career entry or career training in the adult CETA system,

protot7ping incentive grants, developing and applying "full-service"

technical assistance approaches in substantive areas for application

throughout the CETA system, and increasing the flexibility for service to

youth in need who are above the 85 percent lower living standard income.

CYEP will be expanded to seven more sites in fiscal 1981 in order to test

out the concepts in different conditions; i.e., in large cities and

balance-of-state areas not included in the original sites, to develop the

replication assistance which will be used in the full-scale implementation

of new concept, and to gradually involve more prime sponsors into the new

system, i.e., implementing incrementally.

This iolume presents the original CYEP design information and the first two

quarterly assessments of the success of prime sponsors in implementing

CYEP. Because of the compressed time scheduled, with implementation of

consolidated approaches nationwide proposed for 1982 in the Administration's legislation and with action intended administratively if

legislation does not occur, it is critically important to closely monitor

CYEP, to process the lessons for use by others and to make necessary

adaptations as rapidly as possible.

The first two quarterly assessments contained it this volume indicate the

basic soundness o4 the notions involved in CYEP, but also the challenges in

implementation. /The original eight CYEP prime sponsors have all made

substantial progress at the planning and conceptual level. Administrative

changes are more gradually being put in place. Little change is observable

at the delivery level. However, the basic notions have not been usurped

and seem to be achieveable. It appears that the individualized approach

and consolidation have already led to increased emphasis on year-round

activities and on a more intensive sequence of services for youth most in

need.

On the other hand, full implementation is clearly a multi-year process,

particularly for the CYEP elements which differ most from current ways of

doing business. For instance, new service categories and definitions have

been adopted in the MIS, but the consolidation of cost, activity and

partitApant information has lagged. Employability plans and service

agreements have been developed, but local benchmarks are on a slower track.

It will require extensive effort to assure that the concepts adopted by

planners and administrators locally are, in fact, filtered down to

deliverers. It is important to note that CYEP elements do not undercut

current approaches, so that phased implementation is possible and makes

sense. In other words, system change can and must be a steady and

continuing process rather than an abrupt redirection.

The second volume on the Consolidated Youth Employment Program contains the

third quarterly report and the end-of-year review, as well as a revision of

iv
the CYEP design in light of the Administration's proposals, a series of

detailed background papers and a special report on computer systems for MIS

and service delivery developed and tested in CYEP sites. This first volume

is important because it captures the start-up and planning problems which

will be encountered as other prime sponsors move to consolidation. This

analysis is one of the products of the "knowledge development" effort

implemented under the mandate of the Youth Employment and Demonstration

Projects Act of 1977. The knowledge development effort co _:sts of

hundreds of separate research, evaluation and demonstration activities

which will result in literally thousands of written products. The

activities have been structured from the outset so that each :s selfstanding but also interrelated with a host of other activities. The

framework is presented in A Knowledge Development Plan for the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977, A Knowledge Development

Plan for the Youth Initiatives Fiscal 1979 and Completing the Youth A enda:

A Plan for Knowledge Development, Dissemination and Application for Fisca

1980.

Information is available or will be coming available from these

various knowledge development efforts to help resolve an almost limitless

number of issues. However, policy and practical applications will usually

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

turn, depends on knowledge and availability of these products. A major

shortcoming of past research, evaluation and demonstration activities has

been the failure to organize and disseminate the products adequately to

assure the full exploitation of the findings. The magnitude and structure

of the youth knowledge development effort puts a premium on structured

analysis and wide dissemination.

As part of its knowledge development mandate, therefore, the Office of

Youth Programs of the Department of Labor will organize, publish and

disseminate the written products of all major activities funded under YEDPA

or mounted in conjunction with OYP knowledge development effots. Some of

the same products may also be published and disseminated through other

channels, but they will be included in the structured series of Youth

Knowledge Cevelopment Reports in order to facilitate access and integration.

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

divided into twelve broad categories:

1. Knowledge Development Framework: The products in this category

are concerned with the structure of knowledge development activities, the

assessment methodologies which are employed, the measurement instruments

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

strategy for dissemination of findings.

2. Research on Youth Employment and Employability Development: The

products in this category represent analyses of existing data, presentation

of findings from new data sources, special studies of dimensions of youth

labor market problems, and policy issue assessments.

3. Program Evaluations: The products in this category include

impact, process and betlefit-cost evaluations of youth programs including

v
the Summer Youth Employment Program, Job Corps, the Young Adult Conservation Corps, Youth Employment and Training Programs, Youth :ommunity

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

4. Service and Participant Mix: The evaluations and demonstrations

summarized in this category concern the matching of different types of

youth with different service combinations. This involves experiments with

work vs. work plus remediation vs. straight remediation as treatment

options. It also includes attempts to mix disadvantaged and more affluent

participants, as well as youth with older workers.

5. Education and Training Approaches: The products in this category

present the findings of structured experiments to test the impact and

effectiveness of various education and vocational training approaches

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

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

category present the findings of structured experiments to test the impact

and effectiveness of school-to-work transition activities, vocational

exploration, job-search assistance and other efforts to better prepare

youth for labor market success.

7. Youth Work Experience: The products in this category address the

organization of work activities, their cutput, productive roles for youth,

and the impacts of various employment approaches.

8. Implementation Issues: This category includes cross-cutting

analyses of the practical lessons concerning "how-to-do-it." Issues such

as learning curves, replication processes and programmatic "batting

averages" will be addressed under this category, as well as the comparative

advantages of alternative delivery agents.

9. Design and Organizational Alternatives: The products in this

category represent assessments of demonstrations of alternative program and

delivery arrangements such as consolivation, year-round preparation for

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

individuals.

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

findings on the special problems of and the programmatic adaptations needed

for significant segments including minorities, young mothers, troubled

youth, Indochinese refugees, and the handicapped.

11. Innovative Approaches: The products in this category present the

findings of those activities designed to explore new approaches. The

subjects covered include the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Projects,

private sector initiatives, the national youth service experiment, and

energy initiatives in weatherizat'on, low-head hydroelectric dam restoration, windpower, and the like.

12. Institutional Linkages: The products in this category include

studies of institutional arrangement.; and linkages as well as assessments

of demonstration activities to encourage such linkages with education,

vi
volunteer gr ,ups, drug abuse, and other youth serving agencies.

In each of these knowledge development categories, there will be a

range of discrete demonstration, research and evaluation activities focused

on different policy, program and analytical issues. In turn, each discrete

knowledge development project may have a series of written products

addressed to different dimensions of the issue. For instance, all

experimental demonstration projects have both procgs and impact evaluations, frequently undertaken by different evaluation agents. Findings

will be published as they become available so that there will usually be a

series of reports as evidence accumulates. To organize these products,

each publication is classified one of the twelve broad knowledge

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

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

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

in the demonstrations. Hence, the multiple products under a knowledge

development activity are closely interrelated and the activites in each

broad cluster have significant interconnections.

This volume on CYEP should be read in conjunction with Youth Employment Policies and Programs for the 1980s--Background Analysis for the Employment and Training Components of the Youth Act of 1980 in the "research

on youth employment and employability development" category. The cvmplete

reports of the evaluation of CYEP are available from the Office of Youth

Programs.

Robert Taggart

Administrator

Office of Youth Programs

vii
CONTENTS

Overview

Original Concept Paper on the

Consolidated Youth Employment

Program 1

Introduction 2

Intent 7

Project Implementation 13

Planning 22

Administration and Management 48

Knowledge Development 56

CYEP Subpart Narrative 60

CYEP Reporting 74

Process Evaluation 99

CYEP Concepts and Definitions 105

CYEP and Special Wage Provisions

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act 113

CYEP Process Evaluation: First

Quarterly Report 119

CYEP Process Evaluation: Second

Quarterly Report 141

viii

10
ORIGIN7'

CONCEPT PAPER ON THE

CONSOLIDATED YOUTH

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

DEMONSTRATION

OFFICE OF YOUTH

PROGRAMS

- 1 -

3
I. INTRODUCTION - POLICY STATEMENT

- 2 CM.
POLICY STATEMENT

The Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act (YEDPA)

created two new youth programs operated by prime sponsors,

in. addition to the Summer Youth Employment Program and

youth efforts under Title II (which account for half.of

Title II participants). These new categorical programs --

Youth Community Conservation and Improvement Projects ( YCCIP)

and Youth Employment and Training Programs (YETP) -- were

needed to increase the level of services for youth which had

declined under Title II from 62 percent in fiscal 1975 to 52

percent in fiscal 1977, to test alternate approaches

(tangible work-oriented projects in the case of YCCIP vs.

service enriched and school-oriented work-experience under

YETP), and to promote linkages with schools and communitybased organizations as well as other institutional changes.

It was recognized from the outset that these new categorical

programs, with their differing age and eligibility requirements, delivery approaches, service mixes, and reporting

requirements, would complicate local planning and delivery.

The new programs were intended as temporary measures to promote change and to provide a basis for the subsequent development of a comprehensive and coordinated youth policy.

YEDPA was initially authorized for one year only. In the

reauthorization of CETA in 1978, the new programs were

extended for two more years, but with the clear intent that

they would ultimately be consolidated. The administrative

provisions of CETA under Title I, Section 127(c), require

the Secretary of Labor to report to the Congress, no later

than March 1, 1980, proposals for integration and consolidation of the programs established by Part A of Title ry

(Youth Employment and Demonstration Programs) and Title VII

(Private Sector Opportunities for the Economically Disadvantaged) with trio program established by Title II (Part 8 -

Section 214 - Services for Youth). Section 214(b) of Title

II states that the Secretary of Labor shall insure that each

prime sponsor's plan for serving eligible youth includes

provisions for coordinating activities with activities under

Part A of Title rv. In addition, the statement of purpose

for Title IV of the Fiscal. Year 1979 CETA legislation (Section

401) authorizes "a broad range of coordinated employment and

training programs for eligible youth in order to provide

effectively for comprehensive employment and training services

to improve their future employability and to explore and

experiment with alternative methods for accomplishing such

purposes." To fulfill this mandate for integration and
consolidation, the Office of Youth Programs through its

Office of Community Youth Employment Programs is mounting a

Consolidated Youth Employment Program demonstratic in

selected prime sponsor areas. Each prime sponsor will be

provided a single youth grant which includes the funds

otherwise available under SYE?, YETP and YCCIP and this will

be coordinated in planning and delivery with Title II youth

expenditures.

Consolidation is more than a paper exercise. It is possible

to combine the youth programs with a stroke of the legislative pen. However, there are certain issues which must be

considered in the process:

First, the new youth programs differ in some

regards from Title II youth activities. Eligibility standards,allocation formulae, administrative provisions and the like were derived

for specific purposes. It must be decided

which of the provisions will be generalized to

all youth programs and which will be scrapped.

One aim of the demonstration is to try to determine what the details of a consolidated youth

program should be.

Second, consolidation permits flexibility in

planning. It was the experience of the Comprehensive Manpower Program demonstration in the

early 1970's (the precursor to CETA) that local

decisionmakers frequently continued business as

usual. The aim of this demonstration is to

develop and implement a planning framework which

will fully utilize the flexibility, for instance,

in deciding on the mix of summer, year-round and

school-year programs, in determining the appropriate types of services for different age groups and

significant segments and in allocating funds

between in-school and out-of-school youth.

Third, the ultimate aim is to provide a service

delivery system which has an individualized focus

providing a continuum of services to youth as

needed rather than on categorical exigencies. The

system must be based on multi-year employability
development plans, with coordinated services

arranged to meet these plans.

Fourth, there is now no system for tracking youth

over time through local employment and training

programs, much less for planning and implementing

a multi-year continuum of services. For instance,

there is an unknown level of concurrent enrollments

in SYEP ari Title II, as well as a crazy-quilt

pattern interprogram transfers. Intake and

termination records are kept for each program; cost

records, participant characteristics and outcomes

are reported separately. It is necessary to

consolidate the management information systems in

order to provide a foundation for individualized

service delivery and a consolidated grant. This

should reduce paperwork at the local level.

Federal reporting will not be increased but will

rathnr be reduced because of the consolidation of

categorical programs.

Fifth, new performance measures need to be developed.

One reason youth have received a declining share

of services under CETA Title II is that unsubsidized

placement is the major standard of performance and

it is frequently unrealistic for young people most

in need. Termination status is recorded arbitrarily

when programs such as SYEP end, even though many

participants return to school and many continue in

employment and training programs. The demonstration

will provide an opportunity to rethink performance

measures for youth programs and to develop new

approaches.

Sixth, CETA does not have a good reputation with

some employers because it does not identify participants with competency so that the quality of

referrals is frequently uncertain. By the same

token, standards of participation in youth programs

are sometimes lax so that completer. may not really

achieve anything. There is a need for a competency

certification system as well as tighter standards

for completion of program activities.

Seventh, although progress has been made in the

coordination of CETA youth programs and other
youth service efforts particularly those in

education and vocational education, the coordination has mostly been in the determination of

potential goals and the joint funding of

activities. There needs to be coordination in

the planning and delivery of services for each

individual so that CETA, vocational education,

education, and other services for a youth are

mutually supporting. A restructuring of the

system provides an opportunity for progress in

this direction.

This initial concept paper for the Consolidated Youth Employment Program provides the framework for achieving these

goals. There will be a continuing proctizs of development

and change with full participation of the prime sponsors,

public interest groups, Federal staff, as well as interested congressional representatives. The aim is to achieve

much more than a superficial consolidation; it in to achieve

the full potential for serving youth that the greater flexibility allows. Eopefully, this will provide some examples

of what can be accomplished under the intended reform of

youth programs fir the 1980's.
7

II. INTENT

A. Statement of Purpose

B. Goals and Objectives

C. Program Description

D. Definitions

t9
II. INTENT

A. Statement of Purpose

The purpose of the project is to demonstrate the

efficacy of merging the principal features of YETP,

YCCIP, SYEP and Title II B/C youth activities into

one year-round comprehensive planning and delivery

system, leading toward eventual consolidation of all

youth prrgrams. By addressing both administrative

functions and program activities, the demonstration

. will address the employment problems of low-income

youth, ages 14 through 21, on an individualized,

multi-year continuum that will provide a progression

of services and training to improve their employment

potential. This approach will make it possible to

consider each youth's interests, skills and aptitudes

and to structure activities over a period of time

according to age, educational status, degree of competency and special problems.

B. Goal

The goal of the Consolidated Youth Employment Program

is:- To improve the effectiveness of employment

and training services to youth by providing

activities focusing on the employability

needs of the individual through a continuum

of services delivered in response to an

individualized Employability Plan and Record

(EPR); and

- To permit each prime sponsor to determine the

collective needs of its youth and, through

more flexible planning, allow each sponsor to

allocate resources in such portions as are

necessary to enhance the employment prospects

of local youth.

C. Program Description

Prime sponsors participating in the demonstration will

receive a CYEP grant which will be used flexibly to

serve all youth and primarily low-income youth within

the community. All youth who are registered will have

an !PR developed which will provide a long-range
broadly focused career development plan for the

youth through the age of 21. Youth eligible to

receive all services will enter into a CYEP service

agreement which lays out the CYEP services to be

provided and the goals and objectives both the

parti"cipant and the CYEP counselor envision as the

outcome of the provision of these services. Program activities will be defined as units of service

and participant progress will be meastred in terms

of certifications related to the Employability Plan

and Record (EPR) and the CYEP service agreement.

CYEP places a heavy emphasis on the developmental

aspects of employment and training services. It

also provides the framework for increased program

linkages and integration of services to achieve

a comprehensive employability development system.

D. Definitions

Certification

A declaration that ,a CYEP participant has mastered

one of the four CYEP competencies -- pre-employment,

educational attainment job skill proficiency, and

work maturity/employability.

Certification Criteria

The criteria set for attainment of a competency in

one of the four areas. These criteria are established by the prime sponsor in order to maintain

uniformity and consistency in the program outcomes.

Competency

One of the four areas of program outcomes. CYEP

participants are certified as they meet the criteria

of pre-employment, educational competency, job skill

proficiency, and/or work maturity/employability.

Comprehensive Services Eligible

Comprehensive service eligible is the CYEP registrant category for income eligible participants

who are neither in nor expect to be in a unit of

service within 30 days. Youth in this category

are only eligible to receive limited services.

21
- 10 -

Consolidated Youth Employment Program (CYEP)

CYEP is a demonstration project designed to test

the efficacy of merging the principal features of

the Youth Employment and Training Program, Youth

Community Conservation Improvement Projects and

the Summer Youth Employment Program and Title II

B/C youth activities in one year-round comprehensive planning and delivery system.

CYEP Financial Status Report mmo

The CYEP FRS is the fiscal reporting form which

will collect program support costs - worksite

supervision, training and services - participant

support costs - wages fringe benefits and allowances - and total CYEP activity expenditures. This

report will be prepared monthly and submitted on a

quarterly basis.

CYEP Participant Report

This report collects information on youth in CYEP

activities cross tabulated by participant characteristics on an end-of-month and a fiscal year-to-date

basis.

Employability Plan and Record (EPR)

The EPR is an individualized long-range career

development plan and strategy geared to a youth's

skills, interests and aptitudes. An EPR is developed

on each youth registered for CYEP.

Generalized Limi:ed Services

Generalized lim.ted services are low cost, short

duration referxal - typl services such as career

days, career information centers, and placement

assistance which are available to all youth in

the prime sponsor area whether or not they are

registered for CYEP and regardless of their

economic status. The number and characteristics

of the youth who receive these services are not

recorded; however, total expenditures for this

activity will be included in the CYEP FRS. EPR's

will not be developed on youth who receive only

these services.
Individualized Limited Services

Individualized limited services are low cost, short

duration, referral-type services available to CYEP

youth, regardless of economic status. Youth who

receive these services have had an EPR developed;

and the number and characteristics of these youth

are recorded in the CYEP Participant Report.

Total expenditures for this activity will be

included in the CYEP FRS.

Limited Services Eligible

Limited services eligible is the CYEP registrant

category for youth whose family income exceeds 85

percent of the lower living standard income level

and who may receive individualized limited services

under an EPR; will be developed and followup will be

accomplished at least every 6 months on youth in this

category.

ParA.cinant

Participant is the CYEP registrant category for

youth who are active in a unit of service. The

general progress of a participant is subject to a

status check at least once every 30 days.

Registrant

A registrant is a youth who has applied for CYEP

services and for whom an EPR has been developed.

Service Agreement

A service agreement serves as a control document for

participant/counselor decisions related to specific

program activities and the long-term strategy laid

out in the EPR. A service agreement will be developed

for each unit of service; the format is found in

the CYEP guidelines. A CYEP service agreement enumerates the CETA/CYEP services which will be provided.

Service agreements may be made with CETA, education,

vocational education, vocational rehabilitation or any

other institutions providing CYEP activities.

Transition

Transition is the registrant category for CYEP youth

whose service agreement calls for participation in a

unit of service within 30 days as well as those youth
- 12 -

who have completed or terminated from a unit of

service in the last 30 days. During the transition

period, EPR's and service agreements should be updated and revised as necessary.

Unavailable for Services

Unavailable for services is the registrant category

for CYEP youth who have moved from the prime sponsor

area, entered the armed forces, declared they are

not interested in CYEP services or cannot be located

after a reasonable period of time. No followup is

required on these youth.

Unit of Service

A unit of service is one of the 15 discrete CYEP units

of activity.
III PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

A. Site Identification

B. Timetable and Duration

C. Funding

D. Developmental Process

E. Organizational Responsibilities

F. Federal Monitoring
- 14 -

Protect Implementation

A. Site Identification

In order to meet the stated goals and purpose, a

CYEP annual plan subpart will be developed in

eight demonstration sites. The subpart will fo".d

in the principal features of YETP, YCCIP, and SYEP

and will be closely coordinated and/or integrated

with Title II B/C youth activities wherever possible.

One price sponsor from every region was selected to

participate. During the planning process two withdrew from the demonstration. The remaining sites

provide a cross-section of governmental entities,

including three consortia, four counties and one

city. The prime sponsors included in the demonstration

are:

Region Selected Prime Sponsors

I Penobscot County

Consortium, ME

II Morris County, NJ

III Peninsula Office of Manpower

Programs Consortium, VA

IV Escambia County, FL

V

Rock Island, Il (County)

VI Central Texas Manpower

Consortium, TX

IX Torrance, CA

X Yakima County, WA
- 15 -

B. Timetables and Duration

Although initial funding will be one year only, this

is intended as a two-year demonstration. Service levels

to youth will be maintained in FY 1981 if discretionary

dollars are available. This will enable prime sponsors

to plan using a multi-year approach. Attached is a

tentative timetable for activities from January 1979 to

the beginning of operations on October 1, 1979.

January 24

January 25

February 5 - 9

February 26 - 28

March 15

March 27

April 19 - 20

N_ _y 31 - June 1

May 25 - June 22

July 30

Briefing session for representatives of seven public interest

groups including the U.S.

Conference of Mayors, and the

National Association of Counties

Announcement of prime sponsor

selectees

First meeting of national/regional/prime sponsor work group to

refine guidelines, draft annual

plans, develop planning and

reporting instructions

Second meeting of work group

Training of prime sponsor and

regional staff on final guidelines. Planning grants and

grant packages issued

Briefing on CYEP status at

scheduled Regional Youth

Coordinators meeting in

Washington, D.C.

Meeting with prime sponsor key

coordinators to review progress

Meeting with prime sponsor coordinators to review draft plans

Reworking of plans for A-95

clearance

Submission of plans to Regional

and National Office; A-95 clearance
August 7 - 9

September 5

- 16 -

Preimplementation meeting with

regional office and prime

sponsor staff to review clearance comments

Actual plans submitted to

Regional Offices

September 19 - 21 Meeting with prime sponsors

and regional staff for final

negotiations

October 1 Operations begin

C. Funding

The total funds available to each prime sponsor for

the CYEP in FY 1980 will equal the sum of its allocations under the Youth Employment and Training Program (YETP), the Youth Community Conservation and

Improvement Projects ( YCCIP), and the Summer Youth

Employment Program (SYEP), for that fiscal year plus

any unexpended FY 1979 YETP, YCCIP funds to be

carried into FY 1980. In order to make the demonstration possible the Office of Youth Programs will

request prime sponsors to return the dollars received

through their formula allocations (including the

FY 1980 carry-in) to their respective Regional Offices.

In return OYP will provide prime sponsors with equivalent amounts in YETP discretionary resources. These

funds will thus be unencumbered by specific program

limitations and can be used by prime sponsors as they

wish within the guidelines for CYEP. Although the

demonstration will coordinate Title II B/C youth

activities with those under Title IV, no transfer of

Title II B/C resources will occur. Title II B/C

service levels will be maintained at their second

quarter FY 1977 levels and will be used concurrently

with CYEP. (See Maintenance of Effort in Part IV,

Section E (4)(b).)

In addition, each prime sponsor will receive an

additional amount equal to 10 percent of its FY 1979

YETP allocation or $50,000, whichever is greater, to

cover extraordinary planning expenses. Other extraordinary costs which emerge as a result of the

demonstration and are approved by the grant officer,

in consultation with the National Office, will be

covered by the Office of Youth programs through the
use of discretionary resources. Extraordinary costs, however, will be kept to a minimum.

2
- 18 -

D. Development Process

The development of the program guidelines and

requirements has included significant input from

a variety of groups from the employment and training community who are interested in the problems of

youth on employment. Meetings were held in November

and December with the youth coordinators of the ETA

Regional Offices to obtain their inputs for program

design. Earlier, the Assistant Secretary of Labor

and the Administrator of the Office of Youth Programs,

in speaking to prime sponsors, described the preliminary concepts of the CYEP demonstration and advised

sponsors of the CYEP strategy. As the ideas of the

CYEP began to focus, representatives of several

public interest groups were requested to attend a

meeting on January 24, in which the basic program

guidelines were described and discussed, as was the

implementation schedule. These representatives will

be convened regularly to continually maintain close

liaison with the representatives of the CETA community

and the National Office as the CYEP is implemented.

To ensure the best balance of the final design of the

CYEP, a National Office work group, composed of two

prime sponsor representatives, three Regional Office

representatives, and a minimum of two National Office

youth specialists, was formed to provide the nucleus

for developing the final CYEP guidelines and CYEP

subpart requirements. Throughout the prime sponsor

planning process, regular meetings were held with

all CYEP prime sponsors and Regional Office representatives for these sponsors to discuss and resolve

planning problems.

Consultation with the appropriate congressional

representatives to obtain advice and consent on the

CYEP guidelines and process was made prior to

finalizing the demonstration.

By including these groups in the process of consulting and coordinating the development of the

CYEP, the Department has ensured that the demonstration is reponsive to the needs of the CETA

system, the intent of the law to serve youth in

a responsive manner, and the employment needs of

youth themselves.
- 19 -

E. Organizational Responsibilities

The roles and responsibilities for national, regional and prime sponsor staff are outlined below. These

responsibilities have been carefully considered to

avoid duplication of effort and to maximize coordination between the staffs.

1. National Office

o Issue demonstration project procedures,

and guidelines and reporting instructions.

o Brief appropriate Regional office staff

and train prime sponsor staff on the

implementation of the procedures and

guidelines.

o Issue planning grants.

o Jointly approve annual plan subparts with

the Regional Office.

o Arrange and manage internal evaluation

efforts.

o Provide onsite technical assistance as

appropriate.

o Perform appropriate reviews in conjunction with Regional Office staff

o Report to Congress March 1, 1980, and propose legislative chances based on process

evaluation.

2. Regional Office

o Provide youth coordinator representation

to participate in work group.

o Jointly review, process, and approve annual

plan subparts with National Office.

o Conduct monitoring as described below.

o Accompany National Office staff on reviews

where appropriate.
- 20 -

o Identify a single contact person to

coordinate regional and national responsibilities and work with grant officer,

Federal Representative, and prime sponsor

coordinator.

o Regional Youth Coordinator will retain a

strong and active role in both identification and resolution of problems during

planning, implementation, and operations

during the demonstration period.

3. Prime Sponsor

o Identify a single contact person to coordinate

the overall management of the project who will:

(a) Act as a liaison with the Regional

Office contact person,

(b) Surface any problems encountered

during the planning and operation

of the program,

(c) Develop and assign staff roles in

preparing plans,

UU Represent the prime sponsor during

national and regional planning

efforts and during the operation

of the project,

(e) Meet with the national and regional

staff and work group as required

during the planning and implementation stage,

(f) Develop an approvable annual plan

subpart and meet required operating

and reporting requirements,

(g) Coordinate self-evaluation on project

outcomes, as described under knowledge

development (Section VI), and

(h) Monitor worksites and manage subgrants.

0.0
- 21 -

F. Federal Monitoring

Monitoring tools will be developed and distributed

from the National Office but regular monitoring

visits will be scheduled by the Regional Offices.

Since MIS data for CYEP will not be included in the

Regional Automated System GRAS) and since the program design and performance measures differ

substantially from formula funded youth programs,

monitoring of CYEP projects will not conform to

traditional Regional Office practices. In addition

there will be, at minimum, quarterly and end-ofyear monitoring by Federal staff teams.

Federal monitoring will focus on:

(1) Conformity of actual operations to plans;

(2) Service mix adaptability to and linkages

with community resources;

(3) The quality of Employability Plan and Records

and how they relate to CETA service agreements

and the provision of services under other

programs;

(4) Individual enrollee needs and benefits versus

program design;

(5) Reporting procedures and MIS, and

(6) The structure of CYEP service agreements,

units of service and certification standards.

33
TV. PLANNING

A. Project Overview

B. Applicable Guidelines

C. Eligibility

D. Rey Program Design Features

E. Services for Youth

F. Participant Flow

G. Citizen Review Panel

H. Planning Considerations
- 23 -

IV. PLANNING

A. Project Overview

Because of the constant pressures on the CETA

system to respond to the most pressing employment needs of its clientele, CETA has not

always been able to effectively address the longterm career development needs of youth. Furthermore, although program linkages have always been

encouraged, there has been no systematic approach

to the career development needs of youth. The

Employability Plan and Record which is the core of

CYEP is intended to provide the vehicle for addressing

these issues and also serves the basis for future

planning.

The current youth programs have varying restrictions

on age, income, eligibility, the length of participation

and allowable activities; thus, sponsors cannot provide

a logical progression of services necessary for youth.

By removing these restrictions and permitting sponsors

to determine the services and activities appropriate

to each youth's development, the demonstration project

will seek to improve services to youth, especially

the disadvantaged, by planning, coordinating and

sequencing services to meet individual needs.

Another positive aspect of this project is the

increased flexibility communities will have in

determining which activities and what proportion of

their total youth resources will be used to respond

to various local needs of youth. In order for this

to succeed, a close review of local labor market,

demographic, educational and other pertinent information relevant to the employment needs of youth is

crucial. Even after the initial activities mix is

determined, the prime sponsor should continually

review and, if necessary modify, the CYEP offerings

to make sure that the activities are responding to

the needs of individual participants and the

community.
- 24 -

B. Applicable Guidelines

The guidelines for CYEP are contained in this

document. The regulations governing programs under

Part A, Subparts 2 and 3 and Part C of Title IV

of CETA are superceded by these guidelines

unless specific reference is made to applicable

sections of the regulations. Such references

will refer to the Title IV regulations of

March 6 and March 9, 1979. The CYEP demonstration

project is being funded with YET? discretionary funds

and, therefore, is not subject to YETP, YCCIP and

SYEP regulations governing the formula funded programs

(see preamble to March 9, 1979, Title IV regulations).

The CYEP guidelines contain the rules under which the

demonstration projects will operate and, thus, also

serve as the basis for regional office review, approval

and monitoring in the designated sites. Conversely,

the regulations of Parts 675 and 676 of Title XX

published April 3, 1979, will apply to CYEP unless

specifically excluded in this document.

C. Eligibility

The provision of CYEP services, other than limited

services, is restricted to youth ages 14-21 who

are unemployed, underemployed or in-school and

whose family income does not exceed 85 percent

of the lower living standard income level.

Limited services activities may be available to all

youth (ages 14-21) in the prime sponsor area regardless

of income. An Employability Plan and Record will be

developed on all youth who are registered for CYEP.

D. Key Program Design Features

Employability Plan and Record

The CYEP design calls for the development of an

Employability Plan and Record (EPR) (and service

agreements) for all youth who register for CYEP.

The EPR is an individualized long-range career

development plan and strategy geared to the

youth's skills, interests and aptitudes.

The EPR is a tool for overall career planning and

should include a step-by-step plan for the youth's

career development from the time of the initial

registration for CYEP until the youth reaches age
- 25 -

22. It should be jointly developed by the youth and

the CYEP counselor and should contain the overall

employability development strategy including education, training and other services and activities, both in

and outside Cr EP that the youth should pursue to meet

his/her career objectives. In addition to information

on employability development, the EPR should contain, at a minimum:

(1) The participant's application/intake forms

including work history and eligibility

determination information;

(2) A log sheet for noting the results of

participant contacts;

(3) Assessment information, test scores, and

completion records;

(4) Attendance records, participant evaluations,

education attainment certificates, status

check and followup forms;

(5) Status change records; and

(6) The employability development strategy and

service agreement(s).

The CYEP application/intake document should contain

all of the information required by the participant

record as described in 20 CFR 676.75-3(b)(1)(i-iii).

The employability plan should be developed consistent

with the requirements of 20 CFR 677.2(c).

Since it is the intent that eventually one EPR

might be shared with the vocational rehabilitation, vocational education and elementary and

secondary education systems and the Employment

Service, specific service objectives, plans and

timetables will be spelled out in separate services agreements. These agreements will be finite

plans covering a specified period of time and related to the provision of one or more services

consistent with the strategy agreed to in the EPR.

Under a fully implemented system, the EPR might

thus include a CYEP service agreement as well as

a vocational education service agreement.
- 26 -

Service agreements might be overlapping or sequential.

For instance, a youth might be concurrently participating in CYEP and vocational rehabilitation and have

service agreements under both. Another youth may have

a CYEP service agreement covering activities related

to his/her participation in CYEP while in high school,

then move on to a post-secondary vocational education

program and eventually return to CYEP for OJT and

placement assistance.

Even though it may not be possible to develop and

implement a unified delivery and employability development planning system immediately, prime sponsors

under CYEP should strive to achieve these important

program objectives.

Eligible youth in need of services will work with their

CYEP counselors to develop CYEP services agreements

which will specify what activities are to be provided

and what outcomes are expected as a result of the youth's

participation in the program. Although the CYEP service

agreement is a nonbinding document, it should serve

as the common reference point for the youth's participation within the program. Over several years,

several service agreements might be written.

The CYEP service agreement will serve as a control

document for participant/counselor decisions related to

specific program activities and the long-term

strategy laid out in the EPR. The format for the

service agreemeht, which will be developed by each

prime sponsor, must contain at a minimum:

(1) The name and social security number of

the participant;

(2) The date the service agreement form is

completed;

(3) The name of the system with which the agreement is made, e.g., CETA or Vocational Education;
- 27 -

(4) The goals and objectives of the service

agreement;

(5) A timetable for the activities and services

under the agreement including:

a. the expected and actual beginning and

ending dates of the agreement;

b. the name of the unit of service and*

the service deliverer;

c. a brief description of the program activity;

d. the expected and actual results of participation; and

e. whether or not the participant completed the

prescribed activity.

The EPR, besides providing a road map of how the

youth is to attain his/her career goal, should also

serve as a travel log. In other words, it should be

maintained as a continuing record of the status and

progress of the youth. At each noint of contact

with CYEP, and at regular intervs while receiving

services, a registrant's status will be assessed

and recorded. The record might include a retrospective of experience since the last contact where

there has been a hiatus. Fo7.- instance, a summer job

applicant who had last receiv-26. services during the

previous summer might be asA.ed qu3stions concerning

accomplishments in and out of school during the

fall and winter. Psychometric and other tests might

be given and recorded to determine progress. The

periodic followups of registrants should also be

used as a means to determine their views concerning

services received or not received, both within and

outside CYEP. Youth views should be retained within

the EPR because they reflect attitudes towards

participation and might be a fundamental ingredient

for understanding the needs of each individual.

They might also be compiled for various units of

service to determine how participants perceive

their involvement.

7

;)
- 28 -

The EPR can, therefore, be used as the data base to

determine the effectiveness of various units of

service. For instance, completers and noncompleters

of units of service can be compared, at the time of

their required status check as can similar individuals who do and do not participate in particular

units. In the first year or two of the demonstration,

the information base may be too small to achieve such

assessments, but over time, it should be possible to

determine the impact of each unit of service for

different types of individuals.

Units of Service and Comoentency Certification

Activities in CYEP are defined as both free

standing activities such as work experience, onthe-job training and skill training and combinations of interrelated activities. Work experience

might thus be provided in conjunction with skill

training, education or preemployment experience.

These single or combined activities, units of

service, are the basic building blocks of the CYEP

service agreement and are the reportable program

activity units for the CYEP MIS. A CYEP service

agreement might prescribe one unit of service or a

structured sequence of units of service. Completion

or noncompletion of the 15 units of service will

be recorded in each participant's EPR. The total

number of completions and noncompletions for each

of the units 'of service will be recorded in the

CYEP Participant report.

In order for both the participant andthe counselor

to be able to measure the participant's progress within

CYEP, benchmarks or competency criteria should be

established. Competencies may be gained both within

and outside CYEP. Attainment of these competencies

or benchmarks will result in the prime sponsors' certification that the youth has attained a defined level

of performance as measured by the certification

criteria.
- 29 -

The CYEP will have competencies certified in four

basic areas. The first is a preemployment certification indicating a basic awareness o2 the worldof-work and the receipt of a range of occupational

information. A second certification will be by the

attainment GED, high school diploma or some other test

or credential of educational achievement. The third

certification will be for jobWiiiiUiiiired through

institutional or on-the-job training for a particular

job. The fourth certification reflects work maturity

or full employability.

Certification criteria relates to an individual's

attainment of competency in one of the four certification

areas not to the provision of any specified services.,

Thus, they should not be equated with units of service.

It is possible, however, that the criteria for completion

of a unit of service may be expressed in terms of

competency attainment, such as attainment of a certain

skill level.

Consistency of certification criteria within each

prime sponsor jurisdiction is important so that

individual progress can be measured in a consistent

manner despite the fact that individual performance will vary within units of service and attainable objectiles may differ from individual to

individual. This will permit the CYEP service

agreement and the EPR to serve as'a tracking system

for participant progress within the program in

addition to being the mechanism for detailing completion

or noncompletion of designated activites within units

of service. It is important that certification

criteria reflects community values and are accepted

for CYEP participants. The employer community,

certification criteria that will be understood and

accepted by all employers in their dealings with CYEP.

Prime sponsors should consider using their local youth

councils to help develop and refine certification

criteria for their jurisdictions.
- 30 -

E. Services for Youth

The CYEP conceptual design calls for a program in

which all initial applicants will be provided individualized assessment and an EPR will be developed.

For youth from families whose income is above the

85 percent of the lower living standard income level,

i.e., "Limited Services Eligible" registrants,

no CYEP service agreement will be prepared nor will

they receive compensation during their participation. The youth may, however, be provided the

following "individualized limited services":

(1) Continuing assessment and counseling;

(2) Occupational and world-of-work information,

including information on apprenticeship training;

(3) Placement assistance;

(4) Aid in overcoming sex-stereotyping;

(5) Followup; and

(6) Referral to other community services and programs.

In addition, CYEP may provide programs of generalized

limited services to any youth in the prime sponsor area.

General limited services activities include career

days and career information centers as well as the low

cost, referral-type services available under individualized limited services. Any agency, CETA or nonCETA may refer youth to these activities. Youth who

receive generalized limited services do not have to

be registered for CYEP. However, prime sponsors should

encourage youth to register for CYEP services. No EPR

is required for youth receiving only generalized limited

services and only the cost of providing such services

will be'reported in the CYEP MIS. No participant

characteristics will be collected on youth receiving

general limited services.
- 31 -

For income eligible youth, a CYEP service agreement

will be developed which sets out the "units of

service" to be provided to attain the EPR

objectives. "Units of service" will include the

range of substantive activities authorized under

CETA--on-the-job and skill training, vocational

exploration, work experience, preemployment experience, education, and supportive services, as

well as combinations of these units of services.

If the CYEP service agreement calls for a combination or education and work experience and these

activities are offered concurrently, even if

offered by different deliverers, the unit of

service for this participant should be defined as

"work experience and education." If the participation is sequential, the participant should be

counted in the first unit of service, education,

and then in the second, work experience.

For a youth registered in CYEP, receipt of

individualized limited services will be recorded

on the EPR if it is individualized separate from

other units of service. It is expected that every

"unit of service" will include some limited services

such as occupational information and placement. The

expenditures for these limited services are tracked

separately unless they are built into the unit of

service. For instance, if a youth has completed

work experience and then is referred to a placement

agent, he or she is considered in the work

experience unit of service and then as a recipient

of limited individualized services. If, on the other

hand, job development and placement service is given

by the supervisor of the work-experience unit, the

youth is simply a participant in the work experience

unit of service.

The units of service would, thus, be as follows:

(1) Work experience;

(2) On-the-job training;

(3) Skill training;
- 32 -

(4) Education;

(5) Preemployment experience;

(6) Supportive services only;

(7) Work experience and skill training;

(8) Work. experience and education;

(9) Work experience and preemployment experience;

(10) On-the-job training and skill training;

(11) On-the-job training and education;

(12) On-the-job training and preemployment experience;

(13) Skill training and education;

(14) Skill training and preemployment experience; and

(15) Education and preemployment experience.

It should be possible to operationally define each

discrete unit of service in terms that describe

exactly what is being received by the participant.

Supportive services, if purchased in conjunction

with another unit of service, will simply be counted

as an expenditure within this unit of service rather

than being recorded as a separate unit of service

expenditure.

A youth's participation in a unit of service will

vary in duration and intensity depending on individual

need. For one youth, his or her involvement in a

unit of service might be remedial education and preemployment experience during the summer. For another

out-of-school youth, the work experience unit of

service may be prescribed for 6 months of full-time

activity.
- 33 -

Each CYEP service agreement will set forth the

performance standards against which the youth's

participation will be measured. The length of time

expected to complete the unit of service will be

specified in the service agreement as well as the

hours per week, the estimated cost of the service,

and the amount of income support given to the

participant. The CYEP service agreement, will also

list the requirements for completion of the unit of

service and the expected and actual outcomes to be

gained by the individual.

Under CYEP, no distinction will be made regarding

the services available to in- and out-of-school

youth. However, to the extent possible, prime

sponsors should attempt to develop programs for

in-school as well as out-of-school youth in which

academic credit is awarded. This will mean that

prime sponsors must work with LEA's in structuring

programs and determining the standards by which

the award of credit will be determined. It is

important that the prime sponsor and the credit

awarding agency agree in advance to the conditions

under which credit will or will not be granted.

Credit may be "academic", applied to core educational

requirements such as mathematics, social studies

and English, or it may be "elective", counting

toward graduation but not core requirements.

F. Participant Flow

Under a full implemented CYEP design, any youth

registered for CYEP is eligible for and will be

provided an EPR and, at a minimum, counseling

services. The EPR will include the determination

of eligibility for CYEP services (i.e., income

below 85 percent of the lower living standard).

Upon completion of the income eligibility determination, the youth becomes a CYEP registrant.

CYEP registrants are reported in one of the

following registrant status categories:
- 34 -

1. Limited Services Eligible - Youth with family

incomes above 85 percent of the lower living

standard income level who are eligible to receive

specified low-cost individualized services funded

under CYEP are designated "limited services

eligible." They are not eligible for a CYEP service

agreement or for "units of service." Youth who

receive individualized limited services will be

assessed at periodic intervals (no less than

every 6 months) to determine status and progress,

and will receive counseling and adjustment to

their EPR's. If evidence of an income or family

status change is made available and the youth is

now found to be eligible for "units of service",

the information will be noted in the EPR and the

registrant status will be changed to the appropriate category.

2. Unavailable for Services - Registrants who have

moved out of the prime sponsor area, entered

the armed forces, have declared they are not

interested in services or cannot be located after

a reasonable period of time will be designated

as "unavailable for services" and no additional

followup will be required unless the registrant

seeks additional services.

3. Comprehensive Services Eli ible - Registrants

w ose atest ava e am y ncome data

indicates eligibility for all CYEP services will

be in the "comprehensive services eligible"

category if they are not currently receiving

services and their CYEP service agreement does

not call for participation in an activity within

30 days. Youth in this category will be followedup at least every 6 months to determine what

services, if any, should be provided.

4. Transition - Registrants whose service agreement

Carrinriparticipation in a unit of service

within 30 days, as well as those who have

completed or terminated from a unit of service in

the last 30 days, are considered "transition"

registrants. It is during this period that EPR's

and CYEP service agreements should receive particular

scrutiny to assess their currency and appropriateness.
- 35 -

The transition period should be used to prepare

youth for their upcoming unit of service through

orientation, assessment, counseling or other

services. During this period, the youth

leaving a unit of service should take stock of

where he/she is and what the next step should

be. This is particularly important for youth

entering or leaving a summer component.

5. Participant - Registrants who are in units of

service are called "participants". Progress

of"participants" will be subject to a status

check every 30 days. The CYEP service agreement will indicate the intervals when more

comprehensive reassessments are to occur.

It is anticipated that there will be much

movement between categories over the span

of the EPR (from the point of registration

through age 21). As an example, a young

male age 14 may apply to CYEP. An EPR is

prepared and the family income is found to

be above 85 percent of the lower living

standard income level. The youth then becomes

a "Limited Services Eligible" registrant. He

is assessed and counseled about vocational

offerings in the high school and a service

agreement is made with the school system.

Under ideal conditions, the EPR will be

shared with the school and he will be enrolled

in a vocatio-.dl course of his choice. Followup

by CYEP six months later reveals family disruption,

the absence cf one breadwinner, and a reduction

in family income to below 85 percent of the

LLSIL. At this point, the youth becomes a

"Comprehensive Services Eligible" registrant. A

subsequent ch :k reveals he is still in school and

is doing fine in his vocational education

classes. A CUP service agreement is then

prepared which :ells for a summer job related

to vocational ...mining. Thirty days prior to

the baginnir of the summer program, the youth

becomei .nsition" registrant. He receives

orientation about the summer job and its requirements during this period. In June, he begins
- 36 -

working and becomes a "Participant." At

the end of the summer, he returns to

school and a reassessment suggests that

no work experience would be appropriate because he must concentrate on his studies.

He reenters the "Comprehensive Services

Eligible" category and contact is maintained with him on a regular basis.

At age 18, he decides to enlist and is

accepted by the armed forces. He becomes

"Unavailable for Service's" at this point.

Unfortunately, he is terminated from the

armed forces and returns home without a job.

His EPR is reactivated and adjusted to meet

his current need. He now becomes "Comprehensive Services Eligible." He is referred

to the Job Corps and leaves the area to go

to the Job Corps center. He again goes into the "Unavailable for Services" category.

All this occurs over 5 years. At each

paint of contact with CYEP, the EPR is

adjusted to reflect new needs and changes

in status, and a CYEP service agreement

is prepared to meet these needs. Units

of service completed under CYEP are

recorded, as well as those achievements in

vocational education, the military and the

Job Corps.

In depth EPR reassessments for all participants

must be planned for, and scheduled consistent with

the program design type of activity and the needs

of the individual. A plan for how these

reassessments will be scheduled and managed should

be included in the annual plan.

Hopefully, the !PR can guide this process. For

instance, if initial entrance tests revealed a

mechanical bent, the vocational education course

arranged might be in auto mechanics and the initial

summer job in the city's motor pool. The military

experience might include advanced training in auto

repair consummated by enrollment in the Job Corps'

UAW Advanced Career Training into auto mechanics.

The end accomplishment would be a union job at a

high level of pay despite the various forward and

backward steps taken during the program period.
- 37 -

Status Check and Reassessment (Followum)

Progress of all "Participants" must be checked every

30 days and "Limited Services Eligible" and

"Comprehensive Services Eligible" registrants at

least every six months. In addition, all cempleters

and noncompleters from units of service who are not

participating in other units of service must be followed

up within 30 days of leaving the unit of service. If

the followup reveals a satisfactory status and no need

for further service, the youth enters the "Comprehensive Services Eligible" category. If the youth

cannot be found, he or she enters the "Unavailable

for Services" category. Finally, if the registrant

needs further assistance, is willing to participate

and is scheduled to enter a unit of service within

the next 30 days, he or she remains in the "Transition"

registrant category. (See also followup summary on

next page.)

Eligibility Certification

Youth who apply for CYEP will be subject to an income

eligibility determination. While the youth is a

"Participant" or is moving back and forth between

the "Transition" and "Participant" status no additional

income verification will be made. However, any youth

reported as either a "Comprehensive Services Eligible",

"Unavailable for Services", or "Limited Services

Eligible" registrant must be recertified, income

eligible before entering the "Transition" or

"Participant" status.

4. Citizen Review Panel

CETA Youth Councils are charged with the responsibility

for: setting basic goals, policies and procedures;

facilitating coordination among the various CETA

programs and between CETA and other programs; and

monitoring, evaluating, and making recommendations

to the prime sponsor regarding the better utilization

and coordination of delivery of such servic4is.

Although a primary purpose of planning ccurzils has

been to include the community in policy for'ulation

for CETA programming, planning councils hava in many

instances not been able to successfully carry out

this mission. In particular, it has been di!:ficult

to involve CETA client groups in a meaningful way

in policy deliberations.
Registrant Status

Limited Services

Eligible

Unavailable for

Services

Comprehensive Services

Eligible

Transition

Participant

Followup

Definition Followup

Family income exceeds

05 prcent of the lower

living standard income level.

Cannot be located, moved

away, or not interested in

service.

Income eligible but not

receiving or scheduled to

receive services in 30 days

Raving completed or

terminated from a unit

of service within 30

days or scheduled to

receive services within

30 days.

Currently participating

in a unit of service.

Every 6 months

None

Every 6 months

or prior to

change registrant

status

Thirty-day status

check

Thirty day status

check plus

periodic reassessment,

51
- 39 -

Therefore, uncicr CYEP, youth councils will be urged

to redirect their attention from the advisory role,

during the planning and design phase, to the monitoring and review responsibilities already provided for

in the regulations.

Within each jurisdiction, the Youth Council will

act as a Citizen Review Panel monitoring and evaluating operational programs to assess: whether services are being adequately provided by the various

program deliverers; whether services are appropriate

to address client needs; and whether program outcomes

indicate that individuals are being helped to

progress toward achievement of their employment goals.

Youth Council members will be given the opportunity

to visit program sites on a regular basis, to meet

with participants and staff as well as to observe

operations on their own. Youth members and others

will be able to bring their own perceptions and

priorities to this task and, thus, will be able

to provide prime sponsors with a broad-based non-

,technical assessment of whether the programs work.

For instance, private sector representatives

could assess programs based on whether graduates

have attained competencies necessary for employment

within the world of work. At the same time, this

might help create more effective ties to the private

sector resulting in increased placements within the

private sector. Representatives of other community

programs would become more familiar with the operational aspects of CYEP and they could make

recommendations for improved coordination between

CYEP and other programs, particularly in the

educational system.

Given the broad representation of constituencies on

the Youth Council, the Council should also used

to assist in the development of unit performance

standards, including standards for the award of

education credit, and competency certification

criteria.

H. Planning Considerations

A Consolidated Youth Employment Program Annual Plan

Subpart will be submitted to the region in lieu of

annual plans for YETP, YCCIP, and SYEP. The CYEP

Subpart will also contain the plan for youth activities
- 40

to be carried out under Title II 3 /C. Instructions

for preparation of the CYEP annual plan subpart

narrative are contained in Attachment I.

Although CYEP will be planned and funded on a

fiscal year basis consistent with the timetable

established for other CETA programs, it should be

conceived of as a multi-year continuum of service

delivery based on the needs of individual

participants. This will undouhtedly cause problems

especially at the outset when there is insufficient

information on participants needs to use as a basis

of planning. In subsequent years, EPR's will

provide an important source of information on which

to plan.

In addition, there are other major considerations

that should be kept in mind during the CYEP planning

process. These are identified below to surface the

issues and stimulate the individual prime sponsors

to consider and address each item as appropriate in

their jurisdiction.

1. Transition from Categorical to Consolidated

It is not expected that a fully implemented

CYEP can be put in place by October 1, 1979,

or even within the first year of operation.

Since a phased implementation approach is

contemplated, the CYEP subpart narrative should

consider how the delivery and planning system

will be changed immediately, during the first

year, in the second year and beyond. For instance,

the certification procedures may require a

year to develop, particularly those related

to skill competencies where employer involvement in setting performance measures for

individuals might increase the credibility of

the certification. It might take several years

to work out the arrangements for the sharing of

EPR's with the education and vocational education

systems and education's acceptance of the

responsibility for preparing individualized

service agreements for their programs. In

addition, each prime sponsor will have to

decide to what extent he/she will, during

the first year, be able to provide for the

development of EPR's for all youth who apply

for services.

4-1%)
- 41 -

2. Pro ram Planning for Fluctuatin- Seasons

The CYEP eliminates the distinction between

"summer" and "other" programs. Prime sponsors

may plan a year-round program whereby

eligibility, program design, and other features,

will not be arbitrarily forced into seasonal

patterns. However, this does not imply that

seasonal fluctuation of youth unemployment needs

are not of primary importance and should not be

considered during the planning process. Most

prime sponsors will continue to have a higher

level of participants during the summer months

than during the winter and fall because of seasonality of need. All youth registered in CYEP

must have an !PR including youth participating

only in a summer component. In developing such

EPR's, consideration should be given to multiyear participation and year-round followup.

In other words, the EPR's might prescribe one

type of summer work experience for a 16-year

old and another for the same individual when

he or she is 18. The plan for summer jobs must

anticipate these varying needs. Where the same

individual receives services in the winter or

fall, these should be linked, insofar as possible,

to the units of service in the summer in order

to achieve continuity.

3. Program Linkage

Under 20 CFR 676.23, all prime sponsors are

required to maintain an inventory of potential

deliverers of services. The youth program

regulations further stress the importance of

identifying available community resources and

developing program linkages with them. The

intent of these provisions is to help the

prime sponsor develop opportunities for cross

referral to other programs and foster better

utilization of available community resources.

The rationale for improving such program linkages is that the quality of services will be

Improved because the resources and expertise

of other agencies can be used to complement

CETA programs. Duplication of effort and

reduced competition among programs will result

in cost savings which enable programs to serve

more youth more effectively.
- 42 -

4. Title II B/C Integration with Title IV CYEP

The planning for Title II B/C programs for youth

must be integrated into the CYEP annual plan

subpart and the programs should be operated

in a consolidated manner. All Title II authorized

services except upgrade training are allowable

under CYEP.

a. Eligibility

Since eligibility criteria for CYEP and

Title II B/C differ, prime sponsors will

need to track youth separately to ensure

adherence to eligibility requirements.

Title I- services are limited to those

individuals whose family income does not

exceed 70 percent of the lower living

standard income level, while CYEP allows

zervices to youth up to 85 percent of the

lower living standard income level for

comprehensive services with no regard for

income eligibility for youth who participate

in limited services activities.

b. Maintenance of Effort

The administrative requirement that prime

sponsors maintain their level of effort

under Title II should be achieved through

the identification of dollars that were used

to support youth between 14 and 21 served

under the Title II (then Title I) program

as the end of the second quarter of FY 1977.

This dollar level should constitute the core

of Title II supported activity. The CYEP

prime sponsors may elect to serve proportionately fewer youth than those served as of

March 31, 1977 where higher costs or more

intensive services are to be provided within

the same dollar resources. Prime sponsors

must, however, justify such changes in

youth levels to Regional Offices in order

to obtain approval of the subpart.
- 43 -

c. Appropriation Accountability

Given the differences in eligibility

criteria, allowable services, maintenanceof-effort requirements and the fact that

i.itegration of funding grants cannot be

accomplished during the demonstration

period, prime sponsors will have to meet

fiscal accountability requirements under

both Titles II and IV.

CYEP reporting calls for the consolidated

reporting of Title II and Title IV participants in CYEP activities and combined total

accrued expenditures. Reporting of Title

IV participants and dollars will also have

to be done within the regular prime spomior

repotting system consistent with the FY 2.80

Title II requirements and the requirements

in the CETA Forms Preparation Han book.

Several approaches can be used to accomplish

the dual reporting requirements.

(1) Prime sponsors may need to construct

internal records that will initially

ensure separate participant and cost

tracking by title. Total accrued

expenditures and participation for

Title IV can be determined by subtracting accrued expenditures and

enrollment related to Title II from

the CYEP total.

(2) A first-in, first-out accounting method

can be used in which costs related to

participants served early are charged to

particular appropriation title until

those resources are exhausted. Subsequent participant costs are then charged

to resources from the other titles; or

(3) A system of proportionate accrued expenditure accounting (analogous to

the administrative cost pooling procedures) can be used. This method

assumes that expenditures occur in the

same proportion that each title contributes to the total resource base.
4a.

Both options 2 and 3 assume that the services

and activities provided cannot really be

distinguished by title, and that all CYEP

registrants are Title II eligible. Where

this is not the case (limited services,

services to those whose income is above

the 70 percent or upgrading), specific

title identity must be maintained.

Second, options 2 and 3 assume that a predetermined planned level of resource contribution has been established,by

Another approach that may be considered is to

designate an activity or project that has

traditionally served Title II eligible youth

and been financed by Title II funds as a Title

II activity. Once so identified, youth who

meet the Title II eligibility criteria can

be referred to the activity and designated

as Title II participants for reporting and

accountability purposes.

Whichever of the four methods is used

(participant tracking, first-in/first-out,

proportion accounting, or project designation),

prime sponsors must be able to ensure:

(a) Distinct accountability by title

of all participants and the

related accrued expenditures;

(b) That accountability is maintained for

the Letter of Credit drawdowns consistent with the Notice of Fund Availability; and,

(c) That eligibility and services limitations are adhered to.

d. Data Format

The planning, reporting and participant information forms developed for CYEP differ from

those currently used for Title II. The

EPR and service agreement contain all the

information required by the Title II EDP. Thus,

the EPR and CYEP service agreement should be

considered a substitute for an EDP. All CYEP

registrants (including Title II youth) will

have EPR's developed starting October 1, 1979.

No matter which new or already existing formats or computer programs are used for CYEP,

prime sponsors must ensure that all CYEP

data elements discussed in Attachment 2 are

included in the reporting system.
5. Coordination with Other CETA Activities

To the extent feasible, CYEP should be coordinated

with: programs for youth being operated under

Title II; provisions governing supplemental

vocational assistance and coordination between

prime sponsors and education agencies; Titles

II and IV programs for statewide services;

and other programs as appropriate.

6. Coordination with State Employment Security

Agencies (SESA's)

CETA regulations require that all programs be

coordinated with local SESA offices to the

maximum extent feasible. Under CYEP, there are

many potential areas in which program linkages

make sense. In particular, SESA's may be

uniquely qualified to provide a wide range of

limited services to participants and to assist in

the development of EPR's. In cases where the

SESA provides substantial services to CYEP

participants, prime sponsors should consider

having SESA local offices develop SESA service

agreements with youth.

7. LEA's and CYEP

CYEP requires that when an in-school program

for elementary or secondary school age youth

is operated it shall be administered under

written agreements between the prime sponsor,

and one or more LEA's. The agreement should

include the procedure whereby each youth's

EPR will be related to the youth's academic

pursuits within the school setting. CYEP/

LEA agreements will be developed in accordance

with 20 CFR 680.7 except subsection (a).

Under extraordinary circumstances, a prime

sponsor may request that an in-school program

be operated outside the scope of a CYEP/LEA

agreement. Any such alternate plan must be

fully justified by the prime sponsor and approved

by the Regional Administrator. No registered youth

can be denied services solely on the inability of

the prime sponsor and the LEA to come to an agreement.
Where feasible, the CYEP/LEA agreement will include a plan for the joint utilization of EPR's

by both the education and vocational education

systems. In fact, preparation and maintenance

of such plans for students may be contracted

through the schools. The aim is to achieve

coordination not only on the system level, but

on the individualized service level.

8. Selection and Utilization of Service Deliverers

With CYEP emphasis on individualized service

there may be a need to develop a central intake

unit or shift current services and service

deliverers. Contracting for these services

must meet local and Federal procurement

regulations including a selection process which

provides for special consideration to CBO's

of demonstrated effectiveness as described in

20 CFR 676.23 of the CETA regulations of April 3,

1979. There should be heavy reliance on a wide

variety of community resources which have demonstrated their ability to work with youth.

9. Staff Training and Program Marketing

Staff development is critical to any successful

program operation and especially so in the

planning and program delivery of CYEP. It is

important that staff understand at the outset

the philosophical differencies between the CYEP

and "doing business as usual." While program

activity may appear to remain the same on the

surface, the basis for providing such activities

will have changed. The CYEP represents a substantive move for CETA youth programs to a more

comprehensive long-term approach to solving

youth unemployment problems. It moves program

linkages from an institutional plane to one

based on the needs of individual youth.

Special care must be taken to provide all program

staff including those of the contractors, subgrantees, and schools with a thorough briefing on the CYEP concept and its expectations. The
involvement of other interested community

representatives is critical to the full acceptance

of these efforts. Prime sponsors are to establish

briefing sessions for all CBO's, LEA's, elected

and appointed community officials. Additionally,

community acceptance will be influenced by media

exposure and the development of a continuing

communication process. The planning process and

the CYEP subpart narrative itself should serve

as a tool for communicaticn and involvement.
V. ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

A. Transition Procedures, FY's 1979 & 1980

B. Management Information System

C. Allowable Costs

D. Limits on Participation

E. Reallocation

F. Modifications

G. Maintenance of Effort

H. Compensation

I. Monitoring

J. Maintenance of Records
- 49 -

V. ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

A. Transitional Procedures - FY's 1979 and 1980

1. Bringing Projects into Conformity with CYEP

Guidelines

Two areas must be addressed in the transition

process: The phasing out of (1) existing

YETP and YCCIP programs that may not be

continued and (2) individuals currently enrolled

that may not meet the CYEP eligibility criteria.

First, prime sponsors must review subgrants

and contracts under existing programs and

anticipate their compatibility with the CYEP

design specifications. This may have particular

impact on the current YCCIP projects. Projects

developed under YCCIP may be allowable under

CYEP if they are modified to meet CYEP guidelines.

Second, participants currently in YCCIP who do

not meet the eligibility criteria should be

transitioned to .unsubsidized employment wherever

possible or transferred to other CETI: programs

for which they may be eligible. If these two

options are not available and a YCCIP project is

to be continued in FY 1980, participants may be

allowed to remain in the project under the

"grandfather" concept until December 31, 1979,

or until they reach the 12-month limit, whichever

is first. All youth enrolled on or after

October 1, 1979, must meet the CYEP eligibility

guidelines.

2. Employability Plan and Record (EPR)

All youth who are enrolled on or after October 1,

1979, will have an EPR developed within 30 days

of application. Prime sponsors should plan to

develop EPR's prior to October 1 for participants

already enrolled who will be transferred into

CYEP.
- 50 -

Prime sponsor may requer:t

to offset the cost of devlo,plx,;:. fkr.: youth who apply to CYEP. Do*ationr, r,,-:41'ding such requests will b;,.. n.:'.21 by

officer in consultation m...h. ale c;!:57,0 of Youth

Programs.

3. Limited Services

3y the end of the second quarter of FY 1980, ePch

CYEP prime sponsor will develop a plan for serving

income ineligible youth, if not included with

the subpart narrative implementation schedule.

4. CETA/LEA Agreements

Current CETA/LEA agreements should be reviewed

prior to the implementation of CYEP so that

necessary modifications can be made to bring

these agreements in line with in-school

activities planned under CYEP. Consideration

should be given to modifying the current YETP

CETA/LEA agreement so the program can start at

the beginning of the school year under YETP

and be converted to CYEP on October 1.

5. Financial Transition Procedures for CYEP

Prior to the end of FY 1979, each participating

prime sponsor should make an assessment of funds

that will be unexpended in their YETP, YCCIP and

SYEP subparts as of September 30, 1979. Rights

to these amounts, combined with new obligational

authority amounts relative to the FY 1980 availability for these programs will be relinquished

to the Regional Administrator in return for an

equivalent amount of discretionary funds for the

CYEP demonstration project under a signed

agreement.
The settlement of FY 1979 Annual Plan Subparts

for YETP, YCCIP and SYEP will take place

consistent with the provisions of 20 CFR

676.45. That is the RA shall determine, from

the best information available, for each

expiring Annual Plan Subpart:

(1) Total funding availability;

(2) Estimated accrued expenditures; and

(3) Estimated carryout.

By a date specified by the RA, each recipient

shall submit a final Youth Financial Status

Report for each of the previous year's Annual

Plan Subparts.

Final settlement of expired Annual Plan Subparts

shall not be complete until an audit has been

performed, audit findings have been resolved,

and final reports have been submitted.

Through a Notice of Fund Availability, the RA

will withdraw the estimated carryout amounts

for each of the three programs from the prime

sponsor's obligational authority amount.

A CYEP Annual Subpart will be developed for

FY 1980. For the FY 1980 program year, YETP

discretionary resources for each prime sponsor

equal to the combined total of carry-in plus

new obligational authority for the three programs

will be allotted to each RA. As CYEP Subparts

are approved, RA's will issue a Notice of Fund

Availability to each of the prime sponsors.

The amounts will equal the total allotted for

Title TV CYEP.

Letter of Credit drawdowns for CYEP activities

will carry the Title IV CYEP identification in

place of the former YETP, YCCIP and SYEP.

Note: In the event of a continuing resolution

or delayed dollar availability, FY 1979 carryin resources will not be withdrawn until the

appropriate level of YETP discretionary resources

is available.
- 52 -

B. Management Information Systems

The CYEP will require some changes in prime sponsor

management information systems (MIS) but more in

the classifications and compilation approaches

than in the fundamental information which must be

gathered. Currently the prime sponsor must keep

track of expenditures for each activity, the

characteristics of participants, participation

in each category, and termination :7.atus from

activities, groups of activities programs. The

CYEP MIS will track individual participants and

provide information on expenditures under

individual CYEP service agreements. The MIS will

record outcomes for participants under these

agreements. It must be compiled intc the

information required by the Department of LaLor--

characteristics of aggregate participants, and

expenditures by unit of service. The CYEP reporting

system is simpler than that currently used. For

each registrant there is an EPR which, except for

those "unavailable for services," is periodically

updated.

There are three types of services which are offered

youth under CYEP: 1) generalized limited services,

2) individualized limited services; and 3) services

under a CYEP service agreement. For gereralized

limited services only total accrued expenditures

are kept. For individualized limited services,

registrant characteristics and total expenditures

are kept. The other CYEP services are reported in

terms of 15 units of service. These are specified

in the CYEP service agreement and provided to

income eligible registrants. The terms of

completion or noncompletion are established in

each individual's CYEP service agreement, and

completion or noncompletio :' .s recorded in the

service agreement and the EPR.
Two reports, the CYEP Financial Status Report and

the Program Status Summary, will be prepared monthly

and submitted on a quarterly basis. Reporting

instructions, are contained in Attachment II.

C. Allowable Costs

CYEP funds shall be expended consistent with the

provisions of 20 CFR 676.40.

Administrative costs shall be pooled with the

general administrative cost pool. Administrative

costs, in general, should not exceed 20 percent of

the total CYEP funds except for certain "special

costs" that may be authorized by the Office of

Youth Programs (OYP). For example, if the OYP

underwrites the cost of a computer system in a

prime sponsor area, the "special costs" will be

added to administration and the total administrative

costs may exceed 20 percent of the total funds. In

order for prime sponsors to be able to request such

additional resources, they must be able to justify

their need by breaking out the various elements

that make up the administrative cost category. Thus,

prime sponsors may consider maintaining a separate

accounting of CYEP administrative costs whether

pooled or not. All other costs for this demonstration

will be governed by tIva current CETA regulations.

D. Limits on Participation

Participation in program activities under CYEP Title IV

funded units of service will not be subject to the

limitations stated in 20 CFR 676.30.

E. Reallocation

The Secretagy has the authority to reallocate

demonstration funds consistent with the CETA

reallocation provisions, 20 CFR 680.15 and 20 CFR

676.47, for any prime sponsor that does not meet

conditions of its grant.
- 54 -

F. Modifications

Because of the individualized nature of services

and the lack of a data base for planning. for a

consolidated program, there will be no requirement

for modification of the plan using actual versus

planned performance data. Modifications howeverk

governing program design as reflected in the subpart

narrative may be required.

G. Maintenance of Effort

See discussion under Part IV, Planning, Section H (4)(b).

H. Compensation

1. Wages, Allowances, and Benefits

=EP participants will be paid wages and

allowances and receive fringe benefits as

provided for in the CETA regulations, except

as noted below:

a. Special wage provisions:

Consistent with the Secretary's authority to carryout programs to test varying approaches in dealing

with the unemployment problems of youth, CYEP

prime sponsors are encouraged to establish

special wage standards for CYEP participants in

accordance with CETA regulations and the

provisions of Section 14 of the Fair Labor

Standards Act of 1938. In establishing such

wage standards, sponsors must consider the age

and proficiency of the participant as reflected

by the sponsor's assessment of the participants'

work competencies. Each sponsor will describe

in the CYEP narrative the conditions and wage

standards which will apply when compensating

participants under Section 14 of the FLSA.

Further operating guidelines will be provided

as CYEP Information Bulletin, Number 1.

b. Special allowance provisions:

Prime sponsors may, subject to these guidelines,

establish CYEP allowance payment standards

considering the following factors:

- the level of proficency of the participant;

- the geographic jurisdiction of the sponsor;

and

C.
- 55 -

- the economic needs of the participant.

The CYEP allowance standards will be developed

as a scale with incremential steps indicating

the allowance sum for each level of proficiency

attained by the CYEP participants. The maximum

incremental step will not be less than the basic

allowance as provided in the CETA regulations.

The level of proficiency will be determined

by the sponsor's assessment procedures and be

reflected in the EPR's. Participants certified

at or below the preemployment proficiency will

receive the lowest increment. As the participant's

proficiency level is raised, the next highest

allowance increment will be issued. The

special allowance payment standards will be

eascribed and approved in the CYEP narrative

prior to implementation.

2. Earnings Disregard

Wages and allowances received by youth

participating in CYEP shall be disregarded

in determining the eligibility of the youth

and the youth's family for, and the amount of

any benefits based on need under any Federal

federally assisted programs.

I. Monitoring

Each prime sponsor will assure that worksites

established directly or indirectly via subgrantees

or contractors are regularly monitored to determine

whether the guidelines and intent of the demonstration are being followed and to insure its success.

J. Maintenance of Records

Although Federal regulations require that CETA

records be kept only for 3 years, CYEP EPR's will

be maintained from the time a youth registers with

CYEP until the youth reaches 22 and 3 yea::,

beyond that period.
V/. KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT

A. Quarterly Narrative Implementation Status

Report

B. Annual Narrative Summary Report

C. Process Evaluation

D. Citizen Review Panel
- 57 -

VI. KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT

A. Quarterly Narrative Implementation Status Report

Prime sponsors will be required to submit Quarterly

Narrati1,2 Implementation Status Reports, and an

Annual Narrative Summary Report as part of their

knowledge development responsibilities under CYEP.

Each quarterly report should be approximately

5 pages in length and the Annual Summary,

approximately 30 pages. Each of these reports

shorld be 4ubmitted to both the Regional and

National Offices as specified.

No specific format will be developed for these

reports but the following instructions should be

used to provide guidance regarding the issues to

be addressed in the reports.

Each prima sponsor narrative report should address

the status of program implementation with particular

attention to the following points:

1. Planning for a year-round, multiyear

consolidated youth program including the

provision of limited services.

2. Administrative adjustments in delivery

arrangements to individualized types of

service.

3. Development of an MIS to accommodate the

unit of service concept.

4. EPR and CYEP service agreement process as a

method of individualizing services to youth.

5. Arrangements for implementing the certification

criteria and concept, performance standards,

as well as completion standards, for units of

service.

6. Modified role for youth council.
- 58 -

The first of these reports covering the transition

period ending September 30 will be due in the

Office of Youth Programs no later than October 31,

1979. The report will highlight activities, issues

and problems encountered during the planning and

implementation process. Subsequent quarterly

reports will be due 30 days after the end of the

Federal fiscal quarter. These reports also should

similarly address issues, problems and the status

of program implementation relative to the above

points.

El. Annual Narrative Summary Retort

The Annual Narrative Summary Report will be due in

the Office of Youth Programs no later than October 31,

1980. The annual summary will report problems,

issues and the status of program implementation

related to the focus areas and will also include

the prime sponsor's evaluation of the impact of the

CYEP design on services to youth.in that prime

sponsor's jurisdiction. The prime sponsor should

assess whether and how CYEP is an improvement over

the YE"P, YCCIP, and SYEP programs operated in

FY 1979. In addition, the prime sponsor should

discuss what the future direction of CYEP within

that jurisdiction should be over the next year, as

well as how data on individual characteristics,

services and progress contained in EPR's is being

used for future year program planning. Prime sponsors

should describe the methodology used, Toblems

encountered and other related issues. Finally,

the report should include any recommendations for

CYEP guideline modification during the second year

of the demonstration and for broader adaptation

to CETA youth programs in general.
C. Process Evaluation

All prime sponsors participating in the CYEP

demonstration will be subject to a process

evaluation which has been contracted for by the

OYP. *(See Attachment 2I1.1 Prime sponsors

should be prepared to provide program evaluators

with needed records and information as requested.

Any additional costs associated with the

provision of such information should be covered

by the supplementary resources contained in the

planning grant.

D. Citizen Review Panel

A National Citizen Review Panel will be formed to

provide a third party assessment of CYEP. This

panel initially will be asked to critique the

CYEP concept and program design and during the

course of the 2-year demonstration will make

visits to demonstration sites in order to assess

program implementation and the viability of the

program design. During site visits, panel

members will have an opportunity to observe

project operations, talk to participants, staff

and others associated with the program. The panel

will submit annually a written report summarizing

findings and making recommendations to the Office of

Youth Programs.
- 60 -

Attachment I

CONSOLIDATED YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM SUBPART NARRATIVE

The Consolidated Youth Employment Program (CYEP) Subpart

Narrative is designed for several :urposes:

(1) to provide a descriptive detail concerning the local

formulation of CYEP design elements;

(2) to provide a framework and schedule for CYEP implementation;

(3) to establish a basis for arranging service contracts

to deal with anticipated enrollment levels and service

needs; and

(4) to present information needed in the assessment of

the CYEP demonstartion program. The CYEP subpart

narrative is not structured to serve as a compliance

document for measuring planned against actual Program

performance.

I. Analysis of Need

A. Significant Segments.

1. Complete the Analysis of Need table (Attachment 1A.) indicating the number of participants characterized by each item, served in

the Title II B/C, YETP, YCCIP, and summer

programs during fiscal year 1979. The data

should be presented through the end of

FY 1979, using either second quarter or more

recent data to make projections for the item

requested. Also indicate, in the space provided, the date of the data upon which the

end of fiscal year projections are based.

2. Complete a "mental" review of the data in

Attachment IA and suggest whether or not the

sponsor's program should be redesigned to

serve a different mix of youth. Such

evidence might include the planning council's

interest in different target groups, economic

shift in needs among target groups, success

rates of particular target groups, backlogs

of applications from particular groups, casefile needs based on assessment results vs.

program design or participants served vs.

those eligible vs. those applying for services.
B. Seasonal Needs.

Focus on the severity of the sponsor's summer

youth unemployment problem by completing the

follwoing items: (Far all FY 1979 months for

which data is not available make best projections.)

1. Calculate a fiscal year 1979 monthly average

enrollment for all CETA participants (October

end-of-month Enrollment plus November End-ofmonth Enrollment plus...August End-of-month

plus September End-of-month Enrollment 12).

2. Calculate a fiscal year 1979 summer monthly

average enrollment for all CETA participants

(June End-of-month EnroMent plus July Endof-month Enrollment alus...September ELd-ofmonth Enrollment e 4).

3a. Indicate the cumulative number of youth participates served each month in FY 1978 and

FY 1979 by completing the table in Attachment

IB.

3b. If available, estimate the number of youth

applications received for CETA summer jobs in

1978.

3c. If available, estimate the number of youth

applications received for CV.1% L--tmmer jobs in

1979.

4a. Project the level of subsieiz8d )..ns needed for

the summer of 1980., relate.. e to t''te number of

all youth served during t/L1 sumrw'! months in

1978, and 1979, by completLng tile following

chart: (Monthly cummulatve enzclUmants)

Planned CYEP Summer Jobs fo.. 1980

Fiscal Year 198'0'

Title rr

Title IV CYEP

Total

June Jull___Alumst___Ist.
- 62 -

4b. Discuss the sponsor's summer program and

include the following; hours per week and

number of weeks; whether or not this is a

change from previous years; and whet:*,t=r such

changes were initiated to increase or

decrease the number of planned CYEP summer

jobs for 1980.

C. Institutional Needs

Describe the basic educational and employment

services available locally from the educational and employer communities. Ti .r. discussion

should focus on the adequacy of ::he career

education, institutional traiLiug/vocational

education, cooperative educatiov, and employment services available through the schools,

public employment service and amployers.

This discussion should also !denfify the shortfalls of these systems in meeting the special

needs of youth. Finally tht narrative -1-,ould

explain how CYEP resources wiLl !ill in the

shortfall. Describe the use of CYEP in

responding to the institutional n,,cds cf the

basic employment and training ays.Aku. 41rough

the schools, the employment service, and

employers.

I. Fund Utilization

Al. Indicate the level of funds plarncd to be

spent in FY 1979 to suppoi:: truth activities

under Title II B/C and deFu7.i.e, in terms of

units of service, the broad categories of

activities for which the:: funds will be

spent. Indicate the leve2 of Title II B/C

dollars that will be used to support youth

activities (units of service) in FY 1980 and

describe the broad categories of activities

(units of service) that will ae funded with

these dollars. Provide a justification for

any significant variance in the dollars

utilized in FY 1979 and FY 1980.

2. Prmlide a rough estimate the total planned

expenditures, number of participants, and the

cost per participant for each activity planned

in FY 1980. For generalized limited services

only total planned expenditures is required.

Use the format suggested below:
ACTIVITIES

- 63 -

CYEP Fiscal Year 1980 Activities

Total

Planned Number of Cost per

Expenditures Participants Participants

Limited Services

(General)

Limited Service

(Individualized)

Unit of Service

Activities (Enumerate)

3. Comparatively, is the sponsor changing the

focus of activities for youth from FY 1978 and

FY 1979 activities? Why or why not? (for

exams 1e, from summer to year round and vice

versa.)

4. Is the cost per participant changing relative

to FY 1978, FY 1979? Why or why not? If not,

does the sponsor want to change the cost per

participant. (For example, the cost per participant may be reduced by increasing in participation in limited services.)

5. Are the emphasis among the activities available

to youth, relative to FY 1978 and FY 1979,

changing; does the sponsor want to change the

emphases? Why or why not? (For example,

shifting emphasis from work experience to

training.)

6. Indicate the level of funds provided for limited

services activities in FY 1978 and FY 1979 and

the level projected for FY 1980; discuss

whether the sponsor's approach is to increase

or decrease the provision of limited services

and why?

III. CYEP Participants (lan)

Indicate the flow of participants into each

activity to be funded by the sponsor by completing

Attachment IC. This report should reflect the

best estimates of how the participants will flow

into the activities on a cumulative, monthly basis.
- 64 -

IV. Participant Selection and Assessment

A. Selection for CYEP Activities.

Describe the procedures to be used to determine or

choose those'youth who will receive unit. of service

activities vs. those youth receiving limited

services. This discussion should clearly delineate

how Title II H/C and Title IV CYEP funds will be

used to serve youth in greatest need of assistance.

The description should answer:

1. How will youth be sorted or selected for

limited zszvices;

2. What rules or guidelines will be used to determine who receives the more intensive units of

service and who receives the less intense (For

example, needs based or performance based rules

for indicating who gets what); and

3. How will the participant assessment process

relate to the selection process.

B. Participant Assessment Process.

1. Describe the participant assessment process

for developing EPR goals and objectives and

for selecting units of services. Indicate the

basic assessment methods that will be used,

and instruments or tools to be used, as well as

the agency(ies) that will perform assessment

functions.

2. Provide either a description of or facismiles

of the basic EPR forms that will be used. The

EPR should address:

participant educational history;

participant work history;

assessment findings;

participant characteristics data;

eligibility data;

long term and immediate goals; and

planned unit of services for accomplshing goals (with start and end dates).
- 65 -

3. Provide either a description of or facismiles

of the service agreement forms to be used.

V. Service Delivery'Agents

A. Communit Resources Inventory (d

Utl Ization.

1. Each prime sponsor is to develop a Community

resources inventory. Discuss the adequacy of

the CRI. For an existing Inventory, the sponsor

may update it, reflecting major changes by

adding or deleting resource agencies. If it is

being updated or changed, indicate when CRI will

be available. (P, copy of the CRI may be

attached.

2. The basic purpose for the Inventory is to provide an up-to-date referral guide enabling

sponsors to enhance the availability of services

and reduce duplication of services for youth.

Based upon the Inventory, discuss the adequacy

of the available services for youth in the area.

Indicate which areas need expansion in terms

of linkage with CYEP funding.

B. Subrecipients and Contractors.

For Title IV CYEP funded activities, complete

the summary of subrecipients and contractors,

Attachment I.D. indicating the delivery agents

for :ETA services, training, employment, and

other activities. Agreements with private

employers for on-the-job training will be

summarized as one total activity in columns 6,

7, and 8, rather than each agreement, separately.

On the back of the form indicate which services

and activities are being purchased on an

individualized basis (open entrance and exits)

and which are generalized or prescriptive for

group entrance and exit; and which are free

referral services). If an RFP process is being

used, indicate in the appropriate column the

type of activity, budget, number of slots and

the duration of the activity. The name of the

proposed subrecipient and the type of agency

may be omitted.

2. Identify any subrecipient or contractor or any

additional agency with whom an agreement will

be consummated for including the EPR as the

basis of the participant's record with that

agency.
- 66 -

C. EPR Linkages.

Full implementation of the CYEP will link CYEP

with community vocational, secondary, and post

secondary educational facilities, with rehablitation services from social agencies, and with

the employers of the local labor market. Each

system would be linked by a common EPR,

individualized for the development of each

participant. Describe the major efforts that

will be taken to achieve this linkage indicating

the timeframes for achieving these efforts.

Clearly state what efforts will be made the

1st year and the 2nd year of the CYEP demonstration.

D. LEA Linkages.

In-school programs for elementary and/or

secondary school age youth are to be operated

pursuant to written agreements between the

prime sponsor and the LEA(s). Describe the

basic nature of the agreement (if any) in

terms of the LEA's role and responsibilities

under the agreement. Has this linkage changed

relative to FY 1979 and FY 1978? If so, how?

VI. CYEP Implementation Schedule.

A. CYEP Design.

Either with a martix or chart, provide a description of the transition process for moving

the current categorical approach to serving

youth to a consolidated youth employment

delivery system.

The accompanying narrative should show how

service delivery changes will be made over

time and how the sponsor will integrate the

EPR process as the basis for planning and

selecting service deliverers for FY 1980 and

FY 1981, to total consolidation by the end of

the two-year demonstration. This section

should array the basic CYEP elements, show

those changes that will be immediate; and those

that will be put in place next year. For each

element, address its implementation against

the two year cycle.
- 67 -

1st Year 2nd Year

1. EPR

2. Certification

3. Performance standards

4. Limited Services

a. Individualized

b. Generalized

5. CYEP MIS

B. Employability Plan and Record

The EPR and the CYEP service agreement are the

basic road map for tracking individual progress

and achievement of goals set out for each

participant. Describe the basic procedures that

will be used to determine the effectiveness of

the EPR, indicating how the sponsor will determine if the structure initially used for the

design of the EPR is the best for accomplishing

the job. (As an example, institutional adoption

of the CYEP EPR is one test of effectiveness.)

C. Certification System.

Service agreements will specify the level of

competencies to be gained by the completion of

each unit of service or combination of units.

Describe the procedures that will be used to

certify each of the four basic competencies,

indicating the standards that will be used to

measure competencies for each level. Also

indicate what method will be used to record

these competencies. (For example, if academic

credit or job certificates will be issued, how

will these be recorded or registered and how

will future record of these be maintained?)

D. Performance Standards

Prime sponsors will have to conceptualize basic

standards for determining unit of service

durations and expectations for competencies.

These standards will be the basis for developing service agreements, insuring basic uniformity

to the unit of service concept within each

sponsor area.

8r
- 68-

1. Describe the basic standards that will be

used for determining the basic unit of service

activity durations and completion levels.

2. Describe the methods that will be used to determine completion of the unit of service in terms

of the standards developed. Contrast this with

criteria that can be used to judge non-completion

and how will the standards be inforced.

E. CYEP Management Information System

Describe the changes that will be implemented

to move the current CETA/MIS system to one that

will track participant EPR's, units of services

(completers vs. noncompleters), certifications

for CYEP. In addition, indicate what changes

will-be necessitated to track participant

characteristics by units of services. The

description should be a road map indicating

what changes will occur and when (first year,

and second year).

VII. Evaluation.

Provide a description of the snonsor's self

evaluation process for evaluating the:

1. selection and assessment process;

2. effectiveness of the units of services'

standards of performance;

3. certification process (Is it working?

Integrity of the process);

4. service agreement procedures;

S. EPR and MIS tracking; and

6. citizen review process.

The evaluation will determine the adequacy and effectiveness

of each CYEP element. It must assess the development of procedures and the effectiveness of the procedures. The basic

judgmental question to be answered is, "Is this the best way

to do it?" The evaluation should also track changes car adjustments made as the evaluation feeds back information on evaluation findings. These finding.: and changes will be described

in the quarterly and annual narrative summary report.
- 69 -

VIII. Extraordinary CYEP" Costs.

A. Implementaiton of CYEP will result in changes

to the sponsor's current way of doing CETA

business - planning activities, purchasing and

reporting activities. On a negotiated basis,

the cost of making these changes will be

covered through the CYEP grant; therefore.,

provide a projected cost estimate for any

anticipated changes that will need additional

funds. These costs should be itemized.

Sponsors will modify this list as other

changes are realized.

B. A-select number of CYEP sponsors may be funded

to undertake special knowledge development

activities through linkages with LEA's Job

Service (Employment Service), Vocational and

Career Education. Some examples of such

special CYEP knowledge development activities

include:

- automated on-line EPR's with schools and

Job Service local offices;

- limited services through EPR's with Job

Service offices; and

- EPR linkages with vocational and career

education systems.

Provide a basic description of the sponsor's

interest (if any) in such efforts and give

estimates of this knowledge development cost.

IX. Special Wage and Allowance Systems (Reserved)

Within a select number of CYEP sponsor, special

wage rate and allowance rate systems will be tested.

These activities must be approved prior to implementation. For each system, the basic special

wage or allowance standards as outlined in the

CYEP guidelines and the guideline addenda will be

discussed. Sponsors wishing to undertake these

activities may provide a preliminary description

of proposed special payment systems; however,

these activities will not be approved until final

guidelines are issued. A preliminary description

will serve to surface the sponsor's thinking in

this area as well as raise questions needing

further clarification Ly the Department of Labor.
- 70 -

CYEP

Significant Segment

Analysis of Need

Youth

At

Characteristics

Male

Title IIVC YET? YCCI? I Summer

zemale

14-Iz

16-17

18-19

20-21

Student . School Dropout

High School Graduate

(or Equivalent)

Post High School Attended

Non-white*

Hispanic

Economically Disaavantaged

Handicappe

Offender

Single Parent

Total Youth servea@

Total Participants served

Fiscal year 1979 data projections based upon data as of

*Black (non hispanic), American Indian, Alaskan Native, Asian or

Pacific Islander, inclusive.

1?articipants, ace 14 through 21 inclusive.

C
Fltwal tem' 191H

ilrrhi,

['kcal tom 1919

J

Month Furollmentu

Oal

.. ...............,...

..........._

. 0 0000010.o

.4.

Nov Ow Jan Fel) Ilar Iv Nay Jun Jul All..... 0

0 4

00

000000.

v. 010. =ftl.000 0 011

. .....

01,0000

nr....... ........... ............... ........., mmimaw........ ..... 0==womon.PV. 00400 -S

*0

.00/0.004000 0/00mWit0 e

0100,0 00000 60 ./.4 101.1 0.00M 0000M0.= .10*0

=110

011 00160110.1M =.,0 . wMIM* 0.1 .10.10

r="00.=

1.0000,

0

. 11=1. mM110 100 0 r..........,

1011==,Wp!0 0110110

w a .....mm.a., 01001 .Ww wor amwW

,.

4000

00

.00.1001

M

01000

1110

miIY=0

, Imm10

..

1=000

, . =ww

.=00

.

0 000== WP101 600. 01

1

000 WM w I

am my 00 dm

MI rt

rt

rt

H

Qr,
Wit nl NPIVIC4n

LiNdied 11011$11TA

. WOlk

00-111e-luil !raining

!:1111 I IIdIIIIog

Film a1 Inu

PI P-Emp. Exp

CYEP Participants (Plan)

(Cumulative)

Nnv Hee Jan I%

00. T..

41ppoilive Sorvieon (only,

_ . , WHok 3111 Training

MO Exp. I Di.

_ 1 w - 11-

Wolk Exp. 4 Pro-Emp. Exp.

on-lhp-job 114101111 6 tkiII 'training

hi' -job Ilalnlnq 6 1:11. on-1 hp- inn

hp-Eup,

:4111 lraloing & Pl.

114111111 i 14/1-limp.

. , Y. frIncallon 4 PIP. Emp,

110...6

Tomowil....

Jul Ang

TOON,
iiEfAIITMENT Of LAMM loolowlaNif r11 TI401111Alegiklollor

SUMMARY OF SUBRECIPIENTS AND CONTRACTORS

S. NAME Of MAE th.oi 'ON LIATalorracm.

Appovol IN. 41111611

1. AWAIT MUMMA

A. TYPE Of PAOORAII INE"4441

.1311.11,C A. q u o c. u Ili ..... a, 0 Iv 'FLIP

1.1 (1 VII I. (3 011444 151441141

4. SullNECIPIENT OA

CUM AACICIA

,.........-.//1/11.1.1.NL

I. TYPE OP AGENCY

OA ORGANIZATION

.riseamampasiammialaraameAss.

TYM OP Anon,

stem cm FACILITY

10 IA PROVIDED

T. TOTAL AUDGET

4111111101111110Mar

NOMA 40

T1141114100 ALOIS WOK

OM PLC 40111

JaittioN41 4.414

I. DURATION 1/0

'ACTIVITY/ FINANCIAL

AGHif10111

cm flu lap. 11111

og
- 74 -

Attachment II

CYEP FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT

Instructions for completing the CYEP Financial Status Rev,rt

Item I Annual Plan Number

Enter the CYEP annual plan_subpart number

assigned by the Employment and Training

Administration Regional Office.

Item 2 Reporting Period

Enter the month, day, and year of the

beginning and ending dates of the reporting

period.

Item 3 Prime 1ponsor's Name and Address

Enter the prime sponsor's name, street

address, city, State, ZIP code and telephone

number (including area code).

Section IV Units of Service

This section of the form provides for

reporting of program and participant

support costs and the total accrued

expenditures for each unit of service

as of the close of business at the

end of the reporting period.

Column A Program Support

For each of the corresponding units of

service, enter the program support costs.

Include in this column expenditures for

worksite supervision, trairr'ng, and services.

Column B Participant Support

For each of the corresponding units of

service, enter the participant support

costs. Include in this col.= expenditures

for participants' wages, fringe benefits,

and allowances.
- 75 -

Column C Total

For each of the corresponding units of

service, enter the total accrued expenditures. The entry in this column equals

the sum of Column A and Column B.

Line IV. a. Work Experience

Enter the program and participant

support costs, and the total accrued

expenditures for the work experience

unit of service. Also include on

this line, work experience expenditures

incurred in a contract or subgrant.

Line IV. b. On- the -Job TraininrEnter the total accrued exnenditures for

the on-the-job training unit of service.

Also include on this line, on-the-job

training expenditures incurred through

a contract or subgrant.

Line IV. c. Skill Training

Enter the program an participant

support costs and total accrued

expenditures for the skill training

unit of service. Include the costs

incurred through a contract or

subgrant.

Line IV. d. Education

Enter the program and participant

support costs and the total accrued

expenditures for the education unit

of service. Include on this line,

expenditures for basic remedial

education, GED and English-as-a-second

language.

9 I
- 76 -

Line IV. e. Preemployment Experience

Enter the program and participant

support costs and the total accrued

expenditures for the preemployment

experience unit of service. Expenditures on this line may include those

for any program of preemployment

experience. A preemployment experience

activity must be on a regularly

scheduled basis, structured with a

definite beginning and ead, designed

to meet a defined objective, and

designed such that youth are assigned

to the unit of service based on an

assessed need. A vocational exploration

program may be considered as a preemployment experience activity.

Line IV. f. Supportive Services Only

Enter the total accrued expenditures

for the supportive services only unit

of service. Include on this line,

supportive service expenditures for'

participants not in another unit of

service. Also include on this line

expenditures for supportive services

as defined in 20 CFR 676.25 -5(c).

NOTE: Do not include on this line,

expenditures for supportive services

which are directly attributable to

another unit of service.

Line IV. g. Work Experience and Skill Training

Enter the program and participant

support costs and the total accrued

expenditures for the work experience

and skill training unit of service.

Line IV. h. Work Experience and Education

Enter the program and participant

support costs and the total accrued

expenditures for the work experience

and education unit of service.
Line IV. i. Work Experience and Preemployment Experience

Enter the program and participant support

costs and the total accrued expenditures

::or the work experience and preemployment

experience unit of service.

Line IV. j. On-the-Job Training and Skill Training

Enter the program and participant support

costa and the total accrued expenditures

for on-the-job training and education

unit of service.

Line IV. 1. On-the-Job Training and Preemmlcrment

perience

Enter the program and participant support

costs and the total accrued expenditures

for the on-the-job training and preemployment experience unit of service.

Line IV. m. Skill Training and Preemployment Experience

Enter the program and participant support

costs and the total accrued expenditures

for the institutional training and

preemployment experience unit of service.

Line IV. n. Skill Training and Education

Enter the program and participant support

costs and the total accrued expenditures

for the skill training and education

unit of service.

9 3
- 78 -

Line IV. o. Education and Preemployment Experience

Enter the program and participant support

costs and the total accrued expenditures

for the education and preemployment

experience unit of service.

Line IV. p. Subtotal

Enter in Column A, Column B, and Column C

the subtotal, which is the sum of lines

IV. a. through IV. o.

Line IV. q. Limited Services

Enter the total accrued expenditures for

the limited services component. Include

the total accrued expenditures for both

individual and generalized limited

services.

Line IV. r. Grand Total

Enter, in Column A, Column B, and Column C

the grand total, which is the sum of lines

IV. a. through IV. q.

Comments Enter any explanations related to the CYEP

FSR. Also use this block to enter any

other comments or questions.
- 79 -

u a OCP.soirmithrr or 6ASOR tmOlOVoliot an* Awn mustr Won

CYEP FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT

(Oemematatioa Protect)

1. ANNwAL 'at-AN Nh.MStR

t. RePORTING PER100 (Month. Day. Year)

UM( SPONSOR'S NAM( ANO AOORILIS (No.. Street. City. State. VP Code,

IV. UNITS OF SERVICE PROGRAM SUPPORT

(A)

PARTICIPANT SUPPORT TOTAL

IBI IC)

a. Work Experience

I O. On-the-Job Training k

--.,

,i. F- e. Skill Training I II d. Education

e. PreEmmoyment Experience If

t. SYCDortiVe Services Only

'777

p , . . ., tt;

i g. Work Experience and Skill Training

h. Work Experience and Education

Work Experience and Pre-Employnunt Experience

I- On-dm-Job Training and Skill Training

k. Onthe-Job Training and Education

I. On-Me-Jac Training and PreErnoltlYmant Extaarignee

1T1. Skill Training and Pro-Employment Experience

rt. Skill Training and Education

1 0. Education and Pre-Employment Experience

I o. Sub-Totei

C. Limited Services

r. GRAND TOTAL

COMMCNTS

ETA $417 (JR1.1179)
- 80 -

Attachment II-A

CYEP PROGRAM STATUS SUMMARY

Instructions for completing the CYEP Program Scatus Summary

T.tem 1 Annual Plan Number

Enter the CYEP annual plan subpart number

assigned by the Employment and Training

Administration Regional Office.

Item 2 Reporting Period

Enter the month, date and year of the

beginning and ending dates of the reporting

period.

'_Lem 3 Prime Sponsor's Name and Address

Enter the prime sponsor's name, address,

city, State, ZIP Code, and telephone

number (including area code).

Registrants

Included in this section is the current

number of registrants in each of the

registrant categories as of the close

of business on the last day of the reporting

period. In addition, report the cumulative

number of registrants and comprehensive

serviceT eligible and participants. A

youth may be assigned to only one registrant

category at any given time.

Column a Curren:

For each of the corresponding registrant

categories, enter the number of CYEP youth

in each registrant category as of the last

day of the reporting period.
- 81 -

Column b Year-to-Date

For the appropriate registrant categories,

enter the cumulative number of CYEP youth

in the category from the beginning of the

fiscal year to the end of the reporting

period. Count each youth at the time he/

she is placed in the registrant category for

the firf.,t time. A youth is counted only

once in any category no matter how many times

he/she may enter the category.

Line A. Limited Services Eligible

Enter the number of registrants whose family

income is above 85 nercent of the lower

living standard income level. Registrants

in this category may only receive: 1) an EPR,

excluding the CYEP service agreement,

2) assessment services, no less than every

6 months, and 3) limited services as defined

in 20 CFR 689.9(c).

NOTE: Do not include on this line youth who

receive generalized limited services only,

i.e., youth who have recived limited services

but have not registered for the program.

Line B. Comprehsneive Services Eligible

Enter the number of registrants who are

eligible for all CYEP units of service, are

not currently receiving services, and are

not scheduled to be in any unit of service

within 30 days.

Line C. Transition

Enter the number of registrants who are

eligible for all CYEP units of service and

whose CYEP service agreement calls for active

participation in a unit of service within 30

days. Include those registrants who have

completed, dropped out, or been removed from

a unit of service within the last 30 days.

Registrants in this category must be followed

un withir 30 days of the tirre they camp etea,

alOpped out, or was removed '2:0111 the last

unit of service.

9 7
Line D.

- 82 -

NOTE: Registrants are not to remain in this

category more than 30 days at a time.

participant

Enter the number of registrants who are

actively participating in a unit of service.

Registrants in this category must have their

status checked at least once every 30 days.

The service agreement will indicate the

intervals at which comprehersive assessments

are to occur.

Line E. Unavailable for Services

Enter the number of registrants who: 1) moved

from the prime sponsor area, 21 entered the

armed forces, or 3) cannot be located after

reasonable attempts by the prime sponsor to

make contact. Registrants in this category

require no followup unless the youth

subsequently seeks services.

Comments Enter any explanations related to the CYEP PSS.

Also use Its block to enter any other comments

or questions.
83

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration

CYEP PROGRAM STATUS SUMMARY

(Demonstration Promet)

1. ANNUAL PLAN NUMBER

2. REPORTING PERIOD (*:o.. Day. Year)

3. PRIME SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS (No., street, City, State, ZIP Code)

CURRENT YEAR-TO-DATE

(al (b)

Registrants

A. Limited Services Eligible

B. Comprehensive Services Eligible

C. Transition

;!:..!.,: stl

.. D. Participant

E. Unavailable for Services . ommENTS

...

ETA 8494 (Jul. 1979)
- 84 -

Attachment IIB

CYEP PARTICIPANTS

Instructions for completing the CYEP Participants Report.

Item 1 Tram of Report ("X" one

Enter an "X" in the appropriate box.

Item 2 Reporting Period

Enter the month, day and year of the beginning

and ending date of the reporting period.

Item 3 Annual Plan Number

Enter the CYEP annual plan subpart number

assigned by the Employment and Training

Administration Regional Office.

CYEP Participants (On-Board)

This section provides the number of participants receiving individualized, limited services

or activity participating in a unit of service

as of the close of business on the last day

of the reporting period, cross-tabulated

by participant characteristics.

Column a Completer

For each of the corresponding units of

service, enter the number of participants

who met the completion standard of unit of

service during the reporting period.

Column b Noncompleter

For each of the corresponding units 02

service, enter the number of participan

who dropped out or were removed from a

unit of service during the reporting period.

Column c Total

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the total number of participants (male and

female) who were participating in CYEP
- 85 -

activities as of the last day of the reporting

period. This column is the sum of Column c. 1.

and Column c. 2.

Sex

Column c. 1. Male

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of males who were participating

in a CYEP activity as of the last day of

the reporting period. This column is a

break out of Column c - Total.

Column c. 2. Female

Age Group

Column d.

Column e.

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of females who were participating

in a C"EP activity as of the last day of

the reporting period. This column is a

break out of Column c - Total.

14 and 15

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of 14- and 15-year old youth

who were participating in a CYEP activity

as of the last day of the reporting period.

16 and 17

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of 16- and 17-year old youth

who were participating in a CYEP activity

as of the last day of the reporting period.

Column f. 18 and 19

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of 18- and 19-year old youth who

were participating in a CYEP activity as of

the last day of the reporting period.

10j
- 86 -

Column g 20 and 21

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of 20- and 21-year old youth

who were participating in a CYEP activity

as of the last day of the reporting period.

Ethnic Group

Column h Black (Not Hispanic)

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of youth participating in a

CYEP activity as of the last day of the

reporting period who were Black Mot

Hispanic), i.e., a person having origins

in any of the black racial groups of

Africa.

Column i Hispanic

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of youth participating in a CYEP

activity as of the last ddy of the reporting

period who were Hispanic, i.e., a person

of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central

or South American, or other Spanish culture

or origin regardless of race.

Labor Status

Column j 1n-school

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of youth participating in a CYEP

activity as of the last day of the reporting

period who were considered in-school youth

as defined in 20 CFR 675.4.
- 87 -

Column k Out-of-school

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of youth participating in a CYEP

activity as of the last day of the reporting

period who were considered out-of-school.

Column 1 Economically Disadvantaged

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of youth participating in a CYEP

activity as of the last day of the reporting

period who were determined to be economically

disadvantaged as defined in 20 CFR 675.4.

Column 1 1. Handicapped

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of youth participating in a CYEP

activity as of the last day of the reporting

period who were considered handicapped as

defined in 20 CFR 675.4. This column is

a break out of Column 1 - Economically

Disadvantaged.

Column m Offender

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of youth participating in a CYEP

activity as of the last day of the reporting

period who were offenders as defined in

20 CFR 675.4.

Column n Single Parent

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of youth participating in a CYEP

activity as of the last day of the reporting

period who were single, abandoned, separated,

divorced or widowed and who have one or

more children living with them.
- 88 -

Item A. Individualized Limited Services

Enter the number of participants receiving

individualized limited services during the

reporting period. Count each participant

only once regardless how many times service

is received during the reporting period.

Item B. Units of Service

Include in the following items the number

of participants in a unit of service as

of the close of business on the last day

of the reporting period.

Item B. 1.

Item B. 2.

Item B. 3.

Item B. 4.

Work Experience

Enter the number of participants in the

work experience unit of service.

On-the-Job Training

Enter the number of participants in the

on-the-job training unit of service. Onthe-job training is defined in 20 CFR

676.25-2.

Skill Training

Enter the number of participants in the

skill training unit of service. Include

in this item participants who received

skill training in an institutional setting,

including vocational education.

Education

Enter the number of participants in the

education unit of service. Include in

this item participants in basic remedial

education, GED and English-as-a-second

language.
Item B. 5. Pre-Employment Experience

Enter the number of participants in the

pre-employment experience unit of service.

Include in this item participants in

structured vocational exploration programs.

Item B. 6. Supportive Services Onlz

Enter the number of participants in the

supportive services only unit of service.

Include in this item participants who

receive supportive services as described

in 20 CFR 676.25 -5(c).

NOTE: Do not include participants who

receive supportive services as part of

another unit of service.

Item B. 7. Work Experience and Skill Training

Enter the number of ?anticipants in the work

experience and skill training unit of service.

Item B. 8. Work Experience and Education

Enter the number of participants in the work

experience and education unit of service.

Item B. 9. Work Experience and Pre-Employment Experience

Enter the number of participants in the work

experience and pre-employment experience unit

of service.

Item B. 10. On-the-Job Training and Skill Training

Enter the number of participants in the

on-the-job training and skill training unit

of service.

Item B. 11. On-the-Job Training and Education

Enter the number of participants in the on-thejob training and education unit of service.
- 90 -

Item B. 12. On-the-Job Training and Pre-Employment

Experience

Enter the number of participants in the

on-the-job training and pre-employment experience unit of service.

Item B. 13. Skill Training and Education

Enter the number of participants in the

skill training and education unit of

service.

Item B. 14. Skill Training and Pre-Employment

Experience

Enter the number of participants in the

skill trainng and pre-employment

experience unit of service.

Item B. 15. Education and Pre-Employment Experience

Enter the number of participants in the

education and pre-employment experience

unit of service.

Item B. 16. Total

Enter the total in Columns a through m.

CYEP Participants (Year-to-date)

This section provides the cumulative'number

of participants who have received limited

services, the number of participants who

have entered a unit of service for the

first time, and the number of participants

who have entered the same unit of service

more than once from the beginning of the

fiscal year to the end of the reporting

period.

Column a Completer

For each of the corresponding units of

service, enter the number of participants

who met the completion standard of unit

of :,ervice.
- 91 -

Column b Non - Completer

For each of the corresponding units of

service, enter the number of participants

who dropped out or were removed from the

unit of service.

Column c Total

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the total number of participants (male and

female) .who were in a CYEP activity. This

column is the sum of column c. 1. and

column c. 2.

Sex

Column c. 1. Male

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of males who participated in a

CYEP activity.

Column c. 2. Female

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of females who participated in

a CYEP activity.

Age Group

Column d 14 and 15

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of participants who were 14 and

15 years old when they entered the CYEP

activity.

Column e 16 and 17

For each of the correspordj.rs items, enter

the namber of participant who were 16

and 17 years old when they entered the

CYEP activity.

I 7
Column f 18 and 19

For each corresponding items, enter the

number of participants who were 18 and

19 years old when they entered the CYEP

activity.

Column g 20 and 21

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of participants who were 20

and 21 years old when they entered the

CYEP activity.

Ethnic Group

Column h Black (Not Hismanic)

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of Black Mot Hispanic)

participants from the beginning of the

fiscal year to the end of the reporting

period. Include in this column, participants who have origins in any of the

black racial groups of Africa.

Column i Hispanic

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of Hispanic.participants

from the beginning of the fiscal year

to the end of the reporting period.

Include in this column, participants
- 93 -

who are of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban,

Central or South American, or other Spanish

culture or origin regardless of race.

Labor Status

Column j In-School

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of participants from the

beginning of the fiscal year to the end

of the reporting period who were considered

in-school as defined in 20 CFR 675.4 - when

they entered the CYEP activity.

Column k Out-of-School

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of participants from the

beginning of the fiscal year to the end

of the reporting period who were considered

out-of-school when they entered the CYEP

,activity.

Column 1 Economically Disadvantaged

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of participants from the

beginning of the fiscal year to the end

of the reporting period who were economically

disadvantaged as defined in 20 CFR 675.4 when

they entered the CYEP activity.

Column 1 1. Handicapped,

For eachof the corresponding items, enter

the number of participants from the

beginning of the fiscal year to the end

of the reporting period who were considered

handicapped as defined in 20 CFR 675.4.

This column is a break out of column 1,

- Economically Disadvantaged.
- 94 -

Column m Offender

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of participants from the

beginning of the fiscal year to the end of

the reporting period, who were offenders

as defined in 20 CFR 674.4 when they

entered the CYEP activity.

Column n Single Parent

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of participants from the

beginning of fiscal year to the end of the

reporting period, who were single, abandoned,

separated, divorced or widowed and who have

one or more children living with them when

they entered the CYEP activity.

Column o Re-entrant* (Year-to-Date Onlv)

For each of the corresponding items, enter

the number of participants who, from the

beginning of the fiscal year to the end

of the reporting period, entered the CYEP

activity more than once. Count each participant each time he/she enters the

activity, after the initial entry. (No

participant characteristics information

will be collected on these youth).

Item A. Individualized Limited Services

Enter the number of participants who received

individualized limited services, from the

beginning of the fiscal year to the end of

the reporting period: Count each participant

only once regardless how many times service

s received during the fiscal year.
- 95 -

Item B Units of Service

Include in this item the number of participants

who enter a unit of service from the beginning

of the fiscal year to the end of the reporting

period. Count each participant only once. in

a unit of service regardless how manyEries

he/she may enter the same unit of service

during the fiscal year. Record all participant

characteristics when a youth enters a unit

of service for the first time.

Item B. 1.

Item B. 2.

Item B. 3.

Work Experience

Enter the number of participants who entered

the work experience unit or service.

On-the-Job Training

Enter the number of participants who entered

the on-the-job training unit of service as

defined in 20 CFR 676, 25-2.

Skill Training

Enter the number of participants who entered

the skill training unit of service. Include,

in this item, participants who entered skill

training in an institutional setting, including

vocational training.

Item B. 4. Education

Enter the number of participants who entered

the education unit of service. Include, in

this item, participants who entered basic

remedial education, GED and English-as-asecond language.

Item B. 5. Pre-Employment Experience

Enter the number of participants who entered

the pre-employment experience unit of service.

Include, in this item, participants who

participated in a structured vocational

exploration activity.
- 96 -

NOTE: Do not include participants who

receive pre-employment experience as part

of another unit of service.

Item B. 6. Supportive Services Only

Enter the number of participants who

entered the supportive services only unit

of service. Include, in this item,

supportive services as defined in 20 CFR

676.25-5(c).

Item B. 7.

Item B. 8.

Item B. 9.

Item B. 10.

Item B. 11.

NOTE: Do not include participants who

receive supportive services as part of

another unit of service.

Work Experience and Skill Training

Enter the number of participants who

entered the work experience and skill

training unit of service.

Work Experience and Education

Enter the number of participants who

entered the work experience and education

unit of service.

Work Experience and Pre-Employment

Experience

Enter the number of particileauts who

entered the work experience and preemployment experience unit of service.

On-the-Job Training and Skill Training

Enter the number of participants who

entered the on-the-job training and skill

training unit of service.

On-the-Job Training and Education

Enter the number of participants who

entered the on-the-job training and

education unit of service.
- 97 -

Item B. 12. On-the-Job Training and Pre-Employment

Experience

Enter the number of participants who

entered the on-the-job training and preemployment experience unit of services.

Item B. 13. Skill Training and Education

Enter the number of participants who

entered the skill training and education

unit of service.

Item B. 14. Skill Training and Pre-Employment

Experience

Enter the numbe: of participants who

entered the skill training and preemployment experience unit of service.

Item B. 15. Education and Pre-Employment

Experience

Enter the number of participants who

entered the education and pre-employment

experience unit of service.

Item B. 16. Total

Enter the total in Columns a through m.
U.S, OITA, 11(1' 01' LABOR Pinploynal oil Triliiing AdnoliiiiNow.

CYEP PARTICIPANTS

(oyulumitilluu 11'01011

U1' IIEWIIIT I "X" owl 2, 10011.2144 411000

Aq, Yew)

J. IINNII .AN NO.

0 On Wad 11 YOWL) Dile

CYEP AC I iVIDLS Cop

snoior No'

Co

alolor TOTAL

b4X Alit GliOUP EllINIC 0110111 1.01.00

LA11011

In , School

tiTATUi

Go'nl' Sklmal

.

Econ. 0114

air.i.a.,

tuntll 44PPO

-.......i.c_.

ullon

1441 blinno

l'44401 Nor 1011401' - 014 filillii4 14 . I ID , 11 11 It a 21 91ic 17

14401

Illinuncl

0 71777

'' '', .4

0

'

c I. 2. 0 I I. 01 A, 0001/01110100i La Soma

0. Unlit al Smug

A

.... re

,4 0'.

:4 y., 4444.W...

' 01;1!,' . uhof

,.:444;:

; iiii

.:t.

;: , t1.1 4'''

..; '441 41

tI'l

r ; l ,,i. , ,..

, "

4,

1

1, 1

4,t ,. ..,

,

01.

,

... 4,r.....

i.

r

I. Wolk Ek1141W11C4 -,---

Z OJT

1 6141 Tido*

4. Eilumituo 6. Pinininlaymunl 1110111110 ....-------

1. wamINIMON

6, Suppoilm

Soiwito1 Only

'ti, %

i',

, 1.

,,,

.......-.......... --.-- ........ ......-.... ,-........... ...--- .........-

1, Wad Emposkowl --

I 61.III Immo* .... MWEIOM.I. 8, Work ExpolionLo

I E1111C4lell

.1ww.11.10, rr .........M.m.mraw . ' . ' "'"''''.

# Woi :Apcuitoi

6 PotEmplop EAPC

1

10, OR MO Skill

Tioninig

II, OJT kod fio.

uhuo

. - - -

11. all onO Pm.

Employ, Elymiloto

13, Skill Tmoiky4

and Eilockloki ,--

14. Skill Dog /No

Employ, I opuronom

16, iducgoun and Piktipploy, Ekpot, -

18. TOTAL .....-

Ills llo.Voisou Ohm n wort de IWO Oil sho Ygobrotlot bowl ONLY,

1400 pal, 11111

0

co
- 99 -

ATTACHMENT III

Description of Process Evaluation of CYSP Methodolray_

A) Overview

The process evaluation of CYEP will be designed to capture

both the administrative and programmatic aspects of moving

from a categorical approach in planning and operating youth

employment and training programs to a consolidated model in

which it is possible to consider each youth's interest,

skills and aptitudes and to structure activities over a

period of time according to age, educational status, degree

of competency and special problems.

Case studies of each of the CYEP sites will be conducted over

a 2-year period in order to draw general conclusions about

CYEP projects and to document the unique ways that each site

deals with the administrative and program design requirements

of the CYEP model. Distinctions will be made where ne;:essary

between WS, statewide, urban, rural, large and small demonstration sites.

It is anticipated that each site will be monitored on the

average of four days per month during the first year and four

days, quarterly thereafter. Case studies will be conducted

under the direct management and coordination of a study

leader who will also be responsible for producing quarterly

study overviews and first and second year summary reports.

H) Evaluation Products and Anticipated Timetable

Quarterly process evaluation reports will be prepared for

each site and in summary for all sites as a program overview.

The initial quarterly report will focus on planning and

transition issues and problems associated with the priority

concerns discussed below. Subsequent reports will track the

implementation of the CYEP design and will assess the impact

of the CYEP on program operations relative to these focus

areas. The need for base line data from categorical program

operations in fiscal 1979 against which to measure change

within each focus area will require that information on each

site be developed and written up within the early months of

the evaluation. The base line information should be

incorporated in program evaluations beginning no Aater than

the second quarterly report.
- 100

An end of year summary analysis will be prepared by the study

leader presenting an overview of findings from all CYEP sites,

including issues and problems raised relative to the implementation process. The year end report will also include an

assessment of the impact of the CYEP design on program operations thus far, and any recommendations, regarding desirable

modifications for the second demonstration year. The final

evaluation report, to be completed by June 1981, should

summarize the findings of the 24-month period of the study,

and make recommendations regarding application of what was

learned from the demonstration to the administration of

CETA youth programs in general.

C) Evaluation Content

The evaluation will focus on the following priority areas:

1. Planning consolidated year round multi-year youth programs.

The process evaluation will document how and why planning

decisions were made in FY 1979 under YCCIP, YETP and SYEP and

how and on what basis they are being made under CYEP.

Particular attention will be given to: the rationale for

assignment of youth to various youth programs in FY 1979

and to particular service activities under CYEP; the impact

of EPR's if any, on planning decisions; the basis on which

decisions on summer programming under YETP, YCCIP, Title II

and SYEP were made including questions of concurrent enrollments; how previous programming compares to the allocation

of resources for summer under CYEP; how criteria for selecting

program deliverers changed because of CYEP; how the role of

the youth council was strengthened because of CYEP design;

and if linkages with other CETA activities (particularly

Title II B/C) and non-CETA activities improved because of

CYEP.

The evaluation will seek to determine the relevance of

program plans to actual program operations in both FY 1979

and under CYEP by comparing program plans in each year to

actual program operations. This assessment will be based on

observation of program operations, review of program records,

sample interviews of youth planning council members and

staff, key prime sponsor staff involved in program planning

regional office staff, and comparison of the written plans

to YCCIP, YETP, SYEP and Title II B/C with those for CYEP.
- 101 -

The review of the second year planning process will suggest

how lessions learned in the first year were applied to refine

the model design. It will assess the planned second year

changes in seasonal programming; service mix as reflected in

utilization of antis of service; administrative arrrangements;

the MIS; the implementation of the EPR and CYEP service agreement concepts; and development and utilization of certification and unit of service completion standards. In addition,

it will indicate how various program components can be

assessed as the data base broadens during the secone, year.

2. Program Description

For each deomonstration site, the evaluation will create a

matrix comparable to the one contained in the CYEP planning

document using the FY 1979 YETP, YCCIP, Title II and SYEP

program information. The matrix will contain base-line data

on: the service mix, the number of youth served within each

program or service activity and the expenditures, if possible,

calculated in a monthly basis to get a sense of the seasonality.

In other words, there will be an attempt to "decompose"

categorical program program records for 1979 to put them in

the same format as the statistical reports which will become

available for CYEP in 1980 and 1981.

Once this baseline information is prepared, the activities

which are provided in fiscal 1980 and fiscal 1981 will be

compared to determined the changes over time in implementing

a non-categorical individualized approach.

3. Employability Plan and Record and CYEP Service Agreement

Since the EPR and CYEP Service Agreement are central to the

whole CYEP program, they will effect the program's design,

MIS, administrative system and criteria for measuring program

success. EPR's concentrate on individual progress and

achievement of goals sec out for that individual within the

context of the CYEP pr(gram. The evaluation will assess the

usefulness of the EPR to improve the quality and appropriateness

of services to participants, and as a management tool, to better

structure the delivery of services to youth.

In each site a sample Pf participants EPR's and CYEP Service

Plan will be tracked over the period of evaluation to document

the participants program experience. A comparison group of

FY 1979 participants will be created by drawing a sample of

individual program records from each of the Title IV youth

programs. For each sample, an analysis will be made of: the

type of service received by significant population segment;

the movement of youth from activity to activity; the length

1 I J
- 102 -

of time youth stayed within an activity (_unit of service), and

the CETA program as a whole; linkages with other community

resources; and the nature of program outcomes related to

interventions used.

The analysis of a sample of CYEP service agreements will

determine whether this leads to different prescriptions for

like youth. The tracking of services will also determine

whether service plans are fulfilled. For the sample, it will

be assessed whether the service plans are consistent with the

broader employability plan (EPR) for each individual.

The same exercise will be repeated in the second year --

tracking both a new sample of enrollees as well as those

checking in the first year to determine whether there is

multi-year continuity in services. An issue of interest will

be To, .her registrants, particularly Limited Services Eligible

regi :ants can be effectively referred to other sources of

services and whether linkages can be established with

vocational edlcation and education to utilize the EPR concept

and to develop service agreements which are consistent with

and will become a E,,rt of this plan. In the second year,

the usefulness of the record of individual performance and

status as a tool for fine-tuning prescriptions for individuals

will be assess4d.

4. Credentialling and Program Measurement

The CYEP program introduces a new concept of certification

standards for documenting competencies and completion standards

for untis of service gained to measure an individual's movement within EPR. It is also intended as a planning tool to

structure service interventions in a secuenced manner

responsive to the needs of individual youth. Program measurement thus is concerned with tracking individual progress

through a series of units of service. Rather than concentrating

entirely on termination measures as indicators of program

success, program effectiveness can thus be monitored through

a series of incremental intermediary measures related to

individual participant progress within the program. The

existence of a record service and a plan for future service

will make it possible to assess the appropriateness of the

service strategy being pursued by the individual as part of

the EPR.

Each site will establish its own criteria and measures for

each unit of service for each individual, as well as requirements for completion of that unit. This must be more than a

paper exercise if it is to be effective. Noncompletion should

be noted in the EPR and nominal participation without performance should not be tolerated. The requirements for completion
- 103 -

of a unit of service should be preformance based. The

evaluation must track individuals through the system on a

case-by-case basis to determined whether the integrity of

this process is maintained and whether the deliverers of

services are aware of an apply the same standards as the

CYEP service contract stipulations.

The CYEP also calls for locally established benchmarks of

performance outside the unit of service concept. The four

basic competencies are: (1) a certificate of proven understanding of the world of work and its demands--preemployment

competency; (2) the demonstrated ability to show up for and

perform on-the-job -- work maturity; (3) educational competency

measures; and (4) skills competency certifications. It may

take several units os service as well as outside experiences

to attain these certifications. The standards for such

certifications must be jointly developed with all elements

in the community, particularly, business and labor, education,

and community-based organizations. Establishment of certification procedures may be a primary activity of the Youth

Council and the

The evaluation must assess the development of these standards

as well as their application in particular cases. It must be

determined whether these can be developed in any way as

recognizable credentials and whether they can improve the

recognition of CETA as a mechanism for developing and identifying employable individuals.

5. Administrative Changes Necessitated by the CYEP Design

The evaluation will be concerned with the implications of

the CYEP design for the program's MIS, administrative costs

and responsibilities as well as grant management including

initial negotiation and modification of grants at the prime

sponsor, regional and national office levels.

The CYEP MIS will not be included in the Regional Automated

System during the demonstration because of the experimental

nature of the performance measures and reporting categories

being used. As stated, the evaluation will document the

adaptions made to current MIS's or creation of new ones.

In addition it will seek to determine whether the information

contained in the CYPIS MIS is used by program staff, and if so,

how utilization. of MIS outputs differs from what existed

prior to CYEP implementation.

It is expected that consolidation of youth programs into

one decategorized program will simplify administrative procedures and reduce the paperwork burden on prime sponsors.

The evaluation will assess whether these expectations are

realized.
- 104 -

The assessment of aiministrative issues will be based on

the interview of regional offices field and grant management

staff, prime sponsor administrative staff, and OYP and OAM,

staff. The perception of these persons and the evaluators'

observation of operations under CYEP, in addition to a

review of administrative procedures and actual products

prepared to respond to these paperwork requirements will

contribute to this assessment. Skill will be required in

separating start-up and transition difficulties from those

which would prevail over the long-run under a county program.
- 105 -

WORKING PAPER NO. 1

CYEP CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

The purpose of this project is to define key concepts involved in the Consolidated Youth Employment Project for FY 1981. These concepts and definitions

are key elements of new youtr employment legislation or reauthorized Tit"*.e IV

legislation with amendments. The definitions presented below reflect knowledge and experience gained through initial implementation of CYEP in FY 1980.

CYEP is intended to replace categorical youth programs with a single basic

youth program and eligibility criteria. Provision will be made for targeting

services on the basis of age, experience and relative need; and for incentive

and discretionary programs.

The purpose of CYEP is to assure that eligible youth are provided with the

means to build competencies that enable them to successfully enter and compete

in the labor market. By focusing on youth age 14-21 with the most limited

opportunities and the most serious barriers to employment, CYEP provides the

preparation that eligible youth require to make a successful transition to

employment. To achieve these ends, CYEP emphasizes the development of each

individual's specific skills through a progression of educational, experiential

and training activities.

CYEP will address this purpose through a program design that is based on five

major assumptions. These assumptions are:

Special intervention is needed to facilitate the successful transition to the adult labor market of low-income youth, especially youth

who are minority group members, single parents or high school

dropouts

The needs of each eligible youth will be individually assessed

to determine present interests, aptitudes, abilities and

personal circumstances

A career development service intervention strategy for each youth

will be developed from a range of available service options based

on assessment results

Gains in abilities will be periodically measured and documented

against a set of locally established criteria for career

development'

1
- 106 -

The program will be managed based on specific levels of program

performance to be attained, the degree to which youth are

achieving individual gains, and by means of systems providing

the information required to assess performance.

A. Employability Development Planning

Employability Development Planning is the ongoing process of designing a

service intervention strategy tailored to the needs, abilities and interests

of each individual youth and measuring each youth's gains in four competency

areas. The first step in this process is assessment. The second step is

development of an individual Employability Development Plan (EDP). Both of

these steps are described below.

1. Assessment is the process of determining each youth's strengths

and weaknesses relative to basic competencies and the capability

of the program to meet identified needs; selecting an appropriate

service strategy; and measuring each youth's progress on a periodic basis. Factors to be addressed in assessment include

each youth's interests and apptitude, his/her present abilities

and previous experience as well as those skills needed to compete

successfully in the labor market, and personal circumstances.

Major elements of assessment are:

Measuring the youth's inIcial level of career.development. This "locates" the youth's present levels of

competency in four areas: (1) pre-employment;

(2) work maturity; (3) education and (4) occupational

skill

Providing a rationale for and identifying a tentative

long-range career development goal and competency

objectives for each youth. The tentative long-range

goal should provide general guidance for the development of a service intervention strategy. More specific

guidance is provided by the competency objectives

which reflect:

the youth's current level of competency in

four areas of career development

Anticipated gains whi:h the youth can make,

given his or her current level, potential, and

time and resources available

"0
- 107 -

Selecting the mix of services in which the youth

will participate in order to achieve the stated

competency objectives. This strategy may include

services to be provided by CYEP as well as other CETA

or non-CETA programs.

An ongoing processof measuring each youth's gains

in the four competency areas and progress towards

accomplishment of the career development goal. This

should occur periodically, including at a minimum,

at the time of completion of each unit of service.

Reassessment involves feedback to the youth and may

lead to the revision of a youth's individual goal or

service intervention strategy.

2. Employability Development Plan is the documentation which

formalizes the individualized service strategy, outlines each

step, and serves as the record of each individual youth's

achievements. The EDP contains these elements:

The youth's long-range career development goal

The youth's competency levels at the time of

initial assessment

The youth's competency objectives

The rationale for the competency objectives

Competency gains identified through periodic

assessment

The planned service strategy, including planned

units of service, their sequence, expected outcomes

and time-frames

Outcomes, including units of service completed,

benchmarks attained and credentials awarded.

B. Service Delivery

The delivery of services to each youth is based on the service strategy set

forth in the EDP. The strategy is a sequential progression of units of

service intended to bring about desired gains in each area of competency

within established time-frames.
- 108 -

1. Units of Service are the educational, experiential and training

activities available under CYEP. These units of service may be

funded by CYEP or through nonfinancial agreements with other

agencies. These units cover a continuum from basic t, advanced

career development services. Each unit of service refers to a

group of interrelated activities designed to assist the youth

in achieving an expected outcome. The units of service are:

General Limited Services--resources such as career

days, job fairs and career information centers which

are made available to the youth population in general

Individual Limited Services--individual assistance

such as referrals, job counseling, career guidance and

activities to reduce occupational sex stereotyping

which is provided to youth not eligible for comprehensive youth services

Transitional Services--individual limited services provided to youth who are eligible for comprehensive youth

services, but are not currently participating in any

other unit of service

Pre-Employment Experience--which may include vocational

exploration, work sampling, training and practice in

basic job search skills, provision of labor market

information and orientation to the world of work. PreEmployment Experience is intended to be a sustained,

scheduled activity analogous to classroom training

Work Experience--part-time or short term full-time subsidized employment under close supervision to provide basic

experience in holding and performing on a job

On-the-Job Training (OJT)--employment, with reimbursement

to the employer for the cost of training, in an entry

level position on a career ladder

Skill Training--basic or advanced training in an

institutional setting for acquiring skills in a specific

occupation or cluster of occupations

Education--remedial and basic education in an institutional setting of a class size or individual naLl-re,

including preparation for a high school equivalency

degree, instruction in English as a second language and

awarding of academic credits

Education and Pre-Employment Experience

Work Experience and Pre-Employment Experience
- 109 -

Work Experience and Education

Work Experience and Skill Training

Skill Training and Pre-Employment Experience

Skill Training and Education

OJT and Pre-Employment Experience

OJT and Education

OJT and Skill Training

Job Search Assistance--job referrals and job development

to assist youth desiring and prepared for full-time

unsubsidized employment

Supportive Services Only--assistance provided to

comprehensive services eligible youth not enrolled

in another unit of service.

2. Completion attests to participant achievement of the expected

outcome in a unit of service.

3. Expected Outcome identifies the gain in competency which the

individual youth is expected to make in a unit of service. Achievement of the expected outcome will assure that the youth is prepared

for the next unit of service as specified in the EDP.

4. A Service Agreement is a mutual agreement between the individual

youth and the service deliverer with Prime Sponsor oversight for

one or more units of service. The Service Agreement records for

each unit of service, the activities in which the youth will

participate, the schedule for the unit of service (expected start

and completion dates and number of hours per week), the service

provider and the expected outcome.

C. Documenting Competency Acquisition

Each youth participating in CYEP is expected to acquire the minimum levels

of competency necessary for successful transition to employment. These
- 110 -

competencies are grouped into four areas of career development and include:

pre-employment, work maturity, education and occupational skills. The gains

in competency are measured and documented throughout the youth's participation

in the program. Career development activities should prepare each individual

youth to the extent possible to enter and progress in career ladder occupations.

1. Career Ladder Occupations--those occupations which develop transferable skills and in which there is opportunity to move up and

through related positions with increasing responsibility and compensation.

2. Measuring Gains--ascertaining the youth's progress in each of the

four competency areas. Gains refar not to the absolute level

attained, but to the degree of progress.

3. Benchmarking-- attests to the individual's level of achievement

in the four areas of career development. Benchmarking is

individualized; criteria for determining the level of certification or documentation are benchmarks or locally determined

standards. For example, using benchmarks, different individuals

may be certified as having attained different grade levels in

their reading ability.

4. Credentialling -- documents an individual's achievement according to

a standard set of benchmarks which will enable the youth to

successfully enter and compete in the labor market. These standards

are locally determined and measured. Credentials do not reflect

individual variations in achievement; one standard is applied to all

youth, and each youth either meets or does not meet the standard

required to receive the credential.
D. Program Management

The individualized nature of the CYEP program requires sound management

based on clear performance expectations and accountability. Performance

expectations include both program performance standards and youths' individual achievements. CYEP program management should assure that program

design and operation achieve goals and objectives. Key components of the

management process are:

1. Performance Standards--define what is expected of Prime Sponsors

by the Department of Labor and what is expected of subgrantees

by Prime Sponsors and specify the measures to be used in determining whether these expectations have been met. The standards are

reasonable (achievable) and the measures are objective (quantitative).

2. Program Planning--setting goals and objectives on the basis of an

analysis of the needs of youth and the service strategies appropriate to those needs and designing appropriate service strategies

consistent with available resources.

3. Work Statements--a tool of program management which defines the

responsibilities, purpose and activities of, as well as assignment standards and performance standards for, each functional CYEP

component of the Prime Sponsor and any other service provider.

4. Subgrant Management--incorporation of work statements and performance standards in subgrants and contracts to assure accountability

through regular monitoring and corrective action as necessary.

5. Management Information System--the means for collecting and reporting basic participant information to the Department of Labor and to

local Prime Sponsors for use in planning, administration, monitoring,

service delivery and decisionmaking. The information provided by a

Management Information System should, at a minimum, answer the following questions:
- 112 -

Who is served by CYEP?

What services are provided to those participants

enrolled in CYEP?

What are the results of CYEP services?

What are the characteristics of CYEP participants?

What are the costs of providing units of service (in

conjunction with the Financial Management System?

6. Financial Management System--the means for collecting and reporting

fiscal information to the Department of Labor and to local Prime

Sponsors for use in planning, administration, monitoring, service

delivery and decisionmaking. The Financial Management System for

CYEP will, at a minimum, answer these questions:

Are program expenditures within planned budgets?

What are the costs of providing services (in

conjunction with the Management Information System)?

What are the program support and participant

support costs associated with each unit of service.

7. Evaluation--measurement of the degree to which program objectives

are achieved.
- 113 -

WORKING PAPER NO. 2

CYEP AND SPECIAL WAGE PROVISIONS UNDER THE

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

The CYEP program design introduces an important concept

of competency certification of the CETA employment

and training system. Certification standards to be

established by each of the prime sponsors will be

used to measure an individual's progress within the

CYEP program both in attainment of increasingly higher

skill levels within one competency field and development

of a range of abilities that together constitute a

level of proficiency that can be certified as a

competency. A prime sponsor should develop certification

standards which incorporate competencies that are considered important by the employer and educational

communities. Once such a certification system is

established and becomes accepted by the community as

a legitimate credential of an individual's abilities,

it can be used by participants to attest to their

abilities in dealing with job search, application for

entrance to other educational or training program, or

military service.

It can also be used internally within a program to

structure a compensation system which rewards people

for their achievement both on-the-job and within the

related educational components. This approach provides

an incentive to individuals to move ahead and it reflects

the payment structure within the world of work. Both

skill level and seniority could be taken into account

in developing such a program.

13c)
- 114 -

Many CI EP participants who enter the program with

no previous work history, in addition to other educational

and other deficiencies, cannot initially be considered

ready for work. Their placement on a job site as

part of a work experience program is for exploratory

and learning purposes and not to contribute to the

Y3roductivity of the work place. They are learners

in much the same way as young people were apprenticed

out to learn a trade in previous centuries. Since

they are primarily learners and not functioning at

the same level as experienced, or even entry level

employees, their level of compensation should reflect

their status.

Traditionally, CETA has used fully subsidized public

sector work sites to create work experience opportunities

for many youth. In addition, on-the-job training

(OJT) funds have been used to reimburse private sector

exployers for the extraordinary costs of training

such employees. In both of these cases, CETA funds

underwrote the training costs and the participant

received at least the minimum wage. Prime sponsors

should be aware of other options in structuring programs

for in-school youth that combine work and education.

The Employment Standards Administration (ESA), Wage

and Hour Division, administers two programs which

permit the payment of subminimum wages to in-school

youth within certified programs.

I. Program Description.

The programs are: (1) The Student Learner Program

and (2) The Full-Time Student Program.

Student Learner Program.

The Student Learner Program provides the opportunity

for high level training combined with related work

experience. The program is authorized under Section

14(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and provides

for employment of students, 16 or above, who are in

bonafide vocational education programs at a special

minimum wage rate that is not less than 75 percent

of the applicable minimum wage. The occupation for

which the student-learner is receiving preparatory
- 115 -

training must require a sufficient degree of skill

to necessitate a substantial learning period. This

skill level is not defined within the regulations

but a good rule of thumb is a job that would require

a training period of at least two years. Prime sponsor

should consult with the Wage and Hour Division Regional

Office for more specific guidance on the type of training

programs that might qualify. Other conditions that

must be met are:

1. The employment of the student-learner at

subminimum wages authorized by the special certificate

must be necessary to prevent curtailment of opportunities

for employment.

2. The student-learner must be at least 18 years

of age if he is to be employed in any activity prohibited

by virture of a hazardous occupation order of the

Secretary of Labor, (See Child Labor Bulletin No.

1) but note the specific exemptions for student-learners

in several of the orders.

3. The training must not be for the purpose

of acquiring manual dexterity and high production

speed in repetitive operations.

4. The employment of a student-learner must

not have the effect of displacing a worker employed

in the establishment.

5. The employment of the student-learner at

subminimum wages must not tend to impair or depress

the wage rates or working standards established for

experienced workers for work of a like or comparable

character.

6. The occupational needs of the community or

industry warrant the training of student-learners.

7. There are no serious outstanding violations

of the provisions of a student-learner certificate

previously issued to the employer, or serious violations

of any other provisions of the Fair Labor Standards

Act of 1938, as amended, by the employer which provide

reasonable grounds to conclude that the terms of the

certificate would not be complied with, if issued.

8. The issuance of such a certificate would

not tend to prevent the development of apprenticeship

in accordance with the regulations applicable thereto
- 116 -

or would not impair established standards in the occupation

or industry involved.

9. The number of student-learners to be employed

in one establishment must not be more than a small

proportion of its working force.

Employment under these provisions may not exceed one

school year unless a longer period is found justified

by the Wage and Hour Division under extraordinary

circumstances. Summer employment, when it is an integral

part of a vocational education program is permissible

and is considered equivalent to one semester of the

allowable employment period.

During the school year, the number of hours of employment

at subminimum wages plus the hours of school instruction

(for which academic credit is given) may not exceed

40. When school is not in session, employment at

the sub-minimum may not exceed 8 hours-daily or 40

hours per week.

Full-Time Student Program.

Under CETA, prime sponsors may use the exemptions

under FLSA Section 14(b) for fourteen and fifteen

year olds. This program provides for employment of

-,full-time students in private sector jobs in retail

.1establishments (including restaurants and motion picture

theaters and private medical facilities such as hospitals

and nursing homes) at wages not less than 85 percent

of the applicable minimum wage. Under this program,

full-time students are permitted to work at subminimum

wages for up to 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week

when school is not in session, or up to 20 hours a

week when school is in session. Employment may not

take place during the student's regularly scheduled

hours of instruction.

The Full-time Student Program does not require that

any educational component or employability development

strategy be developed in conjunction with the employment,

but prime sponsors who decide to use the subminimum

provisions should consider incorporating the program

as one element of a long term employability development

strategy for 14 and 15 year old youth.
- 117 -

Coupling of Programs Under CYEP

The two programs can be used in a sequential manner

beginning with the Full-Time Student Program in which

14-15 year old youth would gain exposure to, and experience

in, a variety of relatively low level private sector

jobs and then advance the youth into the Student Learner

Program at age 16 or above when they settle down to

serious preparation for a specific higher level occupation.

Once the youth has remained in the program for a period

and shown a commitment to the program, the wage should

be increased up to and/or above the minimum wage.

The wage increments under such a scheme should be

tied to the competency certification standards while

adhering to the provisions set forth by ESA. Youth

may not be certified under both exemptions at the

same time.

Authorization of Programs

Student-Learner Programs

Applications for approval of Student Learner Programs

are submitted by employers with the signoff of a local

education agency official (usually the vocational

education coordinator) who certifies the educational

aspects of the program. CETA programs, in order to

qualify must, therefore, be operated in conjunction

with and certified by local school officials. Although

applications must be submitted for each student learner,

it is possible to submit a number of applications

together. In that case, the application should describe

the vocational training program and the related employment

and include the names, and documented dates of birth

of the proposed student learners. The application

is considered authorized on a temporary basis after

submission. As soon as it is certified by the appropriate

school official it becomes permanent within 30 days

of the date it is submitted to ESA unless denied in

writing prior to that time.

Full-time Student Program.

In order to obtain approval of employment under the

Full-Time Student Program, employers must submit their

applications to the responsible Employment Standards

Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Regional Office.
- 118 -

After ESA approval, certificates permitting the employment

of full-time students are issued for up to one year.

They are not issued retroactively. Small retail establishments

which are subject to the FLSA, such as neighborhood

grocery stores may submit a postcard application form

to ESA. The application is presumed to be approved

as soon as it is mailed.

Since many retail establishments are already certified

to hire full-time students, prime sponsors should

check whether a new certification is required before

any MEP placements at the special wage rate are made.

III. Further Information

Copies of the regulations governing these programs

and application forms are provided in Attachment I.

For more information about specific interpretations

of these provisions contact the appropriate regional

office of the Wage and Hour Division, ESA. The list

of contact people is Attachment II. As indicated

in Attachment III, these individuals have been made

aware of the MEP project and the potential interest

on the part of prime sponsors. In !developing programs

under these provisions.
CYEP PROCESS

EVALUATION

FIRST QUARTERLY REPORT

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING

CORPORATION

133
120

CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES

Al number of issues relevant to CYEP have also been identified that cut

across ' 'tvidual sites. Case studies of individual sites are

available from the Office of Youth Programs. These issues are germaine

to the following priority areas of inquiry for the C1 Plocess

Evaluations

Planning a consolidated, year-round, multi-year youth program

Program description

Employability Plan and Record and CYEP Service Plan

Credentialling and program measurement

Administrative changes necessitated by the CYF.P design

Tentative generalizations, exceptions, and relevant issues are presented

below for each area.

A. PLANNING A CONSOLIDATED, YEAR-ROUND, MULTI-YEAR YOUTH PROGRAM

The overall purpose of this area of inquiry within the evaluation is to document how and why planning decisions were made for FY 1979 under categorical

youth programs and any changes that occur for CYEP. This area of inquiry

received considerable emphasis during preliminary data collection and the

initial site visit.

This area of inquiry will be addressed throughout the evaluation. Efforts

during the first three months have focused on documenting FY 1979 planning

decisions and planning processes as well as collecting actual FY 1979 data

for three quarters. With regard to CYEP, FY 1980 planning in progress has

been documented. Changes In approach that appear to be occurring or that

are expected are addressed, although final CYEP planning decisions and
121

comparisons with those made in FY 1979 will be presented in the second

Quarterly Report.

A framework for the comparative analysis of planning data has been constructed by abstracting a common set of steps in the planning process from

the US DOL Comprehensive Employment and Training Plan as well as annual

plan requirements, with particular emphasis on CYEP concerns. FY 1979

planning information from each site has been analyzed in terms of this

framework, which consists of the following steps:

Analysis of need and priority setting, including:

- - use of demographic and labor market information

- - priorities, goals, and measures of success

Planned levels of service and descriptions of services to be

provided at three levels:

- - system level enrollments and outcomes, system level components and linkages

-- component level, which may be organized in terms of Title/

subpart/activity/service or delivery agent

- - participant level planned services, flow, and outcomes

Management and administrative processes necessary to support

service delivery planning

Initial analysis of the planning process points to a number of issues

relevant to planning a consolidated youth program. Each of these issues

are discussed below:

1. CYEP Demonstration Sites Have Been Encountering Persistent Problems

in Analyzing the Employment and Training Needs of Youth Based on Available Data.

Prime Sponsor planning staff generally report that employment and training needs of youth and other target populations are analyzed based on

several factors and types of data. Common elements are:
122

Local policies and knowledge of the area and population to

be served

Demographic and labor market information

Internally developed aggregate data describing the characteristics of applicants and particpants as well as their program

experiences and outcomes achieved

Staff in most sites report that demographic and labor market information

has only limited utility, and, in fact, FY 1979 planning documents contain

minimal data of this kind. Routinely available data from external sources

reportedly present a number of problems, such as:

Data is frequently out of date and not specifically tailored to

the Prime Sponsor's service area

Data cohorts frequently do not correspond to those required by

the U.S. Department of Labor

Data seldom provide sufficient detail in terms of the characteristics and needs of certain groups, particularly youth

When gaps in the data are filled by tapping local services, the

data bases are not comparable

Little improvement in this situation is expected, and several Prime Sponsors question the degree to which such general data can be used effectively.

While these Prime Sponsors appear to be turning to internally generated

data for analysis of needs, this, too, presents problems. Data describing those who have applied for or who are receiving services may not reflect the universe of need, and it is a difficult, time-consuming process

to extract and manipulate data from the MIS for planning purposes, particularly if it is a manual system.

While several Prime Sponsors have reviewed individual EDP's as part of the

planning process, this type of information has generally not been analyzed
123

in a formal manner. It is difficult to manipulate the data contained in

EDP's and the data may be inaccessible if EDP's are kept in outstations

or individual counselor files.

More extensive and effective use of MIS data as well as information from

EPR's is expected by Prime Spo.4or staff under CYEP. It should be noted,

however, that staff in several sites have voiced serious reservations about

the appropriateness of prescribing or predetermining particular service

strategies for specific groups or individuals. This may affect the extent

to which CYEP EPR's reflect long-range planned service strategies based on

any consistent criteria for assignment of youth to units of service.

2. Services for Youth Have Been a Major Priority for Most of the Demonstration Sites in FY 1979 for General CETA as well as Categorical Youth Programs,

In Some Cases Surpassing the Planned Scope of CYEP.

A review of FY 1979 Program Planning Summaries for all sites indicates that

youth were designated as a significant segment for at least two of the three

major programs operated by the Prime Sponsor (Titles IIB, IID, and VI) in

four of the eight sites. Actual youth enrollment data for Titles IID and

VI was excluded from the data collection, consistent with CYEP policy.

Three sites planned to serve youth in both of these programs, however. Two

Prime Sponsors consider Title 'ID to be an integral part of their youth services, and raise its exclusion from CYEP as a serious planning issue.

While analysis of actual FY 1979 enrollment data and comparison with planned levels of service for youth in Title IIB and Title IV programs will be

made at a later date, Prime Psonsor staff have generally indicated that

more youth have been served than was initially planned. Actual Title IIB
124

youth enrollments for the first three quarters of FY 1979 by the one

Prime Sponsor which did not designate youth as a Title IIB significant

segment is estimated to be approximately forty percent of total IIB enrollments.

Youth have generally been selected for priority emphasis because of the

relatively high unemployment rate they experience in addition to their lack

of occupational skills, work experience, and their low income. There appears

to be a difference of opinion among chief administrators of these Prime

Sponsors with regard to whether CYEP will result in services to greater or

fewer numbers of youth. This difference seems to be related to differences

in views regarding the characteristics of youth to be served. Those administrators and staff who view CYEP as a mechanism for providing more concentrated and improved services for these youth "most in need" see fewer youth

being served with more concentrated resources. Those who wish to expand

their scope of services to include services to all youth, e.g. "limited

services eligible youth" see greater numbers of youth served with available

resources.

3. Criteria for Assignment of Youth to Various FY 1979 Programs Reflect,

In Most Cases, a Categorical Approach to Service Delivery With Minimal

Linkages Among CETA Programs.

It appears that few of the ,;YEP Demonstration sites planned a continuum

of services for youth in FY 1979 that linked services available through two

or more grants. In most cases youth were assigned to a particular Title/

subpart program based on such factors as:

Meeting eligibility requirements

Availability of positions/slots and need for the particular

activities and services offered under that Title/subpart.

J Ii
125

There was little evidence of planned inter-Title/subpart flow of services

for youth and success measures focus on positive terminations from CETA

or placement based on participation in individual categorical programs.

One site was a clear exception to this pattern and planned participation

in Title IIB for skills training and in Title IID for experience as an

integrated employability development strategy for youth. Categorical youth

programs for this Prime Sponsor are used to provide a variety of supplemental educational, counseling, and work experience activities.

4. Several Prime Sponsors Planned Detailed Service Strategies Within Major

Activity Categories.

Within the categorical approach described in Part 3 above, at least one-half

of the CYEP Demonstration sites planned to provide "clusters" of sub-activities

and services under the umbrellas of traditional major activity categories for

FY 1979. For example, YETP Work Experience often encompassed several different

types of programs for youth with different needs, combining elements of experience, counseling, and education. In the remaining sites more traditional

single activity approaches were taken.

Several Prime Sponsors indicated that as they gain experience in serving

youth they are becoming convinced that more counseling and support is required if youth are to achieve positive outcomes from CETA. In addition

outcomes need to be defined more in terms of employability development than

in terms of job placements. CYEP is viewed, almost uniformly, as providing

a more flexible approach than categorical programs offered to structuring

effective service strategies for youth.
- 126 -

The FY 1979 "clustering" of activities and services has made disaggregation

of FY 1979 MIS data and planning for CYEP units of service particulatly complicated. This underlines the importance of very clear and precise CYEP

definitions of units of service. At present similar activities do not seem

to be designated as the same CYEP units of service by all Prime Sponsors.

5. In Most Cases Service Delivery Arrangements Are of Long Standing and

Little Change Is Expected Under CYEP.

CYEP Demonstration sites include a continuum of service delivery options

ranging from direct delivery of most services by the Prime Sponsor itself to

contracting or subgranting for delivery of all services. Few comparisons can

therefore be made across all sites with regard to delivery agents. Most

sites plan to continue to use the same basic approach to service delivery

under CYEP as in the past, although some subtle changes that can be

identified are:

Decreases or increases in funding levels to some contractors/subagents consistent with ch..4ges in types or levels of service to

be provided or records of past performance

Expanding or restructuring of Prime Sponsor-operated outreach or

local service centers. For one Prime Sponsor this is a major

area of emphasis.

Centralization of intake, .3 some cases, or centralization of

some MIS recordkeeping

Linkages with related p 3p.ams or a ,Acies are also of long standing.

These linkages usually focus tn letiprocal referral of clients or supplements to financial arrangements with LEA's. Several of the sites are very

concerned about expanding linkages with LEA's under CYEP and desire assistance in this area. Primarily because of the limited time frame for CYEP
- 127 -

planning, related programs and agencies have had only minimal involvement

with CYEP to date.

The apparent durability of service delivery contracts and subgrant arrangements may be an important factor in how CYEP develops. Prime Sponsor attempts to bring about any basic redesign in youth services will require

extensive cooperation from or guidance to delivery agents.

6. Operations and Counseling Staff Have Been More Activel Involved in

CYEP ann n an n t e ast t ou t e Ro e of the out ounce s

Has een mite to Date.

Operations and counseling staff have reportedly participated in planning

CYEP to a greater ex'ent than previously although the procedures for obtaining their input differs from one Prime Sponsor to another. In some Prime

Sponsors one individual, usually a Planner Youth Coordinator, or Deputy

Administrator has had major responsibility for plan development and that

individual has sought input from other staff on a one-to-one basis. In

other Prime Sponsors a task force approach has been used. The level of

participation by the chief administrator differs from one site to another

depending more on management style than on size of program. The primary

reasons for increased staff input into CYEP planning appear to be its

experimental nature and its demand for detailed operational knowledge and

data that cross-cut traditional organizational boundaries.

While the Youth Council has reviewed and commented on CYEP planning products in six sites, this role does not appear to differ from the role of

these councils in FY 'i979. Some difficulty in defining a useful role for

Youth Councils under categorical youth programs was reported. A Youth

Council is not functioning currently in one site and in another it does
- 128 -

not function during the summer. Administrators and staff expect the

Youth Councils to become more active under CYEP particularly with regard

to program monitoring and evaluation. Specific plans for Youth Councils

are still being formulated.

7. Time Limitations and Lack of Clear and Timely Direction Are the Most

Fri antly Reported CYEP Planning Problems.

The short time frame available for.CYEP planning has been a problem for

most Prime Sponsors. A related problem frequently reported is the late

publication of planning guidelines and changes in those guidelines.

Prime Sponsors differ somewhat in their assessment of the support and assistance received, to date, from U.S. DOL/ETA national and regional office

staff. Guidance from the national office is generally viewed positively

although some Prime Sponsors report the need for assistance from staff

with more operational expertise. The problems of time limitations and

changing guidelines are attributed to the national office. While several

Prime Sponsors report valuable assistance provided by regional office

staff, generally the majority view the level of support provided by the

regional office through September 30, 1979, as inadequate. While two

Prime Sponsors attribute this to lack of regional office interest in CYEP,

others indicate that regional office staff do not have sufficient kno.,

ledge and/or information about CYEP to enable them to gi.e adequate Assistance.

While several Prime Sponsors report no need for assistance at the present

time, the majority are seeking expert technical 7,ssistance in such areas

as planning, employability development, MIS, and financial managome, -
- 129 -

B. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This area of inquiry focuses on comparison of actual FY 1979 youth enrollments, participant characteristics, and expenditures data with similar

data for FY 1980 and 1981.under CYEP in order to identify changes that

occur as a result of a consolidated, individualized approach to youth services. For this purpose baseline data has been collected for the first

three quarters of FY 1979 (to the extent it was available).

These data will not be fully analyzed until fourth quarter data is obtained.

Several general comments and issues relevant to this area of inquiry have

been identified. These are discussed below.

1. Management of Services for Youth in FY 1979 Appears to Focus on Individual

Title/Subparts or Program Components Rather Than on the Overall System Level

Yr Individual Participant Level.

Consistent with the categorical approach described in Part II.A.3, Prime

Sponsors generally focus their management of youth services at the categorical

program or component level. MIS data is usually aggregated by individual Title/

subpart or by contractor within each Title/subpart. Performance indicators

are generally those required by the Department of Labor.

Prime Sponsor senior staff have little access to detailed information regarding

plans for individual participants or outcomes that they achieve. Individual

EDP's and participant records are often maintained at the contractor level.

In order for these Prime Sponsors to implement and manage a long-range individualized approach to youth services based on the EPR, a major restructuring of

management processes, management information, and its use will be required.

2. Fourteen CYEP Units of Service Are Represented Among FY 1979 Youth Services.

Complete analysis of participant and enrollment data will be included in the

second Quarterly Report. Based on the available data for the first three quarters, several observations may be made:
130

Average enrollments increased steadily for the first

three quarters in each Title/Subpart with the exception

of Title IIB (youth) which generally remained steady.

The traditional categorical services appear to have been

provided within each Title/Subpart.

For the demonstration sites reporting SYEP data for the

third quarter of FY 1979, approximately 90 % of the

average enrollment was in work experience.

The primary units of service received under Title IIB

(youth) appear to be skill training, work experience and

on-the-job training.

Approximately half of the average enrollment in YCCIP was

in work experience; the two other units of service combinations frequently being used were work experience and skill

training, and work experience and education.

Under YETP, only one Prime Sponsor reported limited

services average enrollment. The average enrollment in

the limited services unit of service for the first three

quarters of FY 1979 appears to account for eighty percent of the YETP average enrollment.

Excluding the limited services category from YETP,

slightly over half of the average enrollment was in

the work experience unit of service; the other three

units of service in which average enrollment was highest

were work experience and education; work experience and

skill training; and pre-employment experience.

There appear to have been no enrollments in any Title/

Subpart at any sitein skill training and pre-employment

experience, or in education and pre-employment

experience.

3. Ex enditures Were Made for Fifteen Units of Service; Expenditures Were

Were oncentrated In ork xper ence.

Complete analysis of enrollment data will be included in the second Quarterly

Report. Prime Sponsors currently depend on manual accounting systems dhich

created difficulties for both Prime Sponsors and field observers in obtaining

fiscal data. The variation among Prime Sponsors' data for management, planning and evaluation purposes should be noted. It should also be noted that

although all Prime Sponsors categorize financial expenditures by Title/Subpart

1 4
- 131 -

and activity, additional, more detailed cost categories used varied widely

across sites, from line item, to subrecipient/subcontractor to governmental

unit or other site-specific category. It is therefore difficult to

retrieve expenditures data and translate that data into units of service

cost categories. However, based on data available for the first three

quarters, several observations may be made:

Total expenditures for all Title/Subparts increased

steadily over the three quarters. Individual Title/

Subpart expenditures fluctuated.

Expenditures for three traditional categorical services,

work experience, on-the-job training and skill training,

were made by seven of the eight Prime Sponsors.

For the most part, expenditures were only made for

work experience in SYEP programs; these expenditures

were primarily for participant wages.

Virtually all the Prime Sponsors' YCCIP expenditures were

for work experience, or work experience in combination

with another unit of service. These expenditures were primarily for participant wages.

Expenditures for Limited Services were made by only two

Prime Sponsors. For one of these approximately one half

of the total Prime Sponsor expenditures were for limited

services.

Work experience accounted for the highest percentage of

total expenditures and the highest percentage of expenditures

for seven of the eight prime sponsors.

For the most part, Prime Sponsor expenditures were equally

divided between program and participant, support.

There were no expenditures by any Prime Sponsor for the skill

training and pre-employment experience unit of service.

C. EPR AND CYEP SERVICE AGREEMENTS

The CYEP design calls for the development of an Employability Plan and

Record (EPR) and CYEP service agreement for each participant. According to

the OYP Concept Paper on the Consolidated Youth Employment Program Demonstration:

11:5
- 132 -

6 The EPR is an individualized long-range career development plan and strategy geared to the youth's skills,

interests and aptitudes...it should be maintained as

a continuing record of the status and progress of the

youth

...The CYEP service agreements will specify what

activities are to be provided and what outcomes are

expected as a result of the youth's participation in

the program...(they are) nonbinding documents...

(and) must contain at a minimum:

the name and social security number of the

participant

the date the service agreement form is

completed

the name of the system with which the agreement

is made

the goals and objectives of the service agreement

a timetable for the activities and services

under the agreement, including

the expected and actual beginning and

end dates of the agreement

the name of the unit of service and

the service deliverer

a brief description of the program

activity

the expected and actual results of

the participation

whether or not the participant completed

the prescribed activity.

The EPR and CYEP Service Agreements may, then, be regarded as management tools

for all three levels of the CYEP structure. The EPR documents the individual

participant strategy and progress in achieving expected performance. The CYEP

service agreement may be conceived of as a service order indicating results expected and achieved. Together, the EPR and CYEP service agreement may be con-
- 133 -

sidered a "contract", albeit non-binding, between the participant and the

Prime Sponsor and betweer the Prime Sponsor and service deliverer on behalf

of the participant. Summing the results for all participants should represent outcomes achieved at the program component and system levels. In order

to plan and manage CYEP operations and evaluate CYEP achievements, managers

at both the Prime Sponsor and subrecipient levels need a sophisticated

participant tracking system. This system must have the capability to

provide managers with information describing not only how many youth are

enrolled in a unit of service, but also the following:

How many individuals receive planned units of service

Characteristics of participants receiving units of service

Short-and long-term outcomes achieved and characteristics

of youth achieving these outcomes

Future plans call for tracking the progress of participants through the

use of a sample of CYEP participant records dt each demonstration site.

At the present time, the sample of FY 1979 participant records to be

used or comparison with CYEP records is incomplete. However, some observe-

, tionf: about the participant records may be made:

Participant files in central, records units are usually incomplete. In most cases, EDP's are kept by counselors or

subcontractors.

EDP's which have been reviewed contain relatively little information. Planned activities and goals, if any, are highly

standardized rather than individualized.

Recordkeeping systems are geared to component level administration and federal reporting requirements rather than

to planning or management at either the system or individual

level.

From field observers experience in collecting MIS data, it is also clear that

a number of terms need to be more precisely defined. This is particularly
- 134 -

true of the CYEP pre-employment and limited services units of service and

the single parent client characteristic category. Sing;e parent is defined as:

"(an individual who is) single, abandoned, separated, divorced or

widowed and who has one or more children living with him/her..."

By this definition, a single parent may or may not also be a head of household. Conversely, a head of household may or may not be a singly parent.

The overlap 'n "" two categories may lead to reporting errors and will present a problem 0)Imparing FY 1980 and 1981 data with FY 1979 data.

D. CREDENTIALLING AND PROGRAM MEASUREMENT

For purposes of the CYEP process evaluation, the terms program measurement,

certification and credentielling may be viewed as a hierarchy of outcomes in

CYEP. These outcomes can be aggregated at all three levels of the CYEP

structure: participant level, program component level and overall system

level.

Competency standards or program measurement measure outcomes at the unit of

service level. They are used for determining whether a participant has

reached the level of achievment necessary to complete a given unit of service.

These standards should also state the expected time frame in which this

performance is to be achieved. Standards to be applied should be documented

in individual participant's EPR and CYEP plan of service.

Certification measures outcomes at a more general level, defining competency

in each of four areas: pre-employment, educational achievement, job skills,

and work maturity or full employability. Certification documents that an individual participant has attained a defined level of competence in one or more

of the above areas, regardless of the unit of service or combination of units

of service in which the participant has participated. Certification should
- 135 -

also be documented in the individual particpant's EPR and CYEP plan of service.

Credentialling means that the CYEP program measures and 'certifications are

consistent with and accepted by relevant educational or occupational institutions or associations. Credentialling refers to the transferability of CYEP

measures to other orgaLizations such as secondary schools, community or

junior collEges, vocational or technical schools, employers, labor organizations and so on.

There are several aspects of credentialling and measurement that are unique to

CYEP. First, few Prime Sponsors have ever attempted to implement such concepts.

Most Prime Sponsors use CETA termination status to measure performance both at

the participant and component levels. These same Prime Sponsors, however,

generally feel the need to measure employability development. Although

competency based measures of performance are not used frequently by Prime

Sponsors, they may be used at the subrecipient level to some degree. Subrecipient data will be collected at a later date.

Second, measurement of and collection of management information about outcomes

achieved at the participant as well as component and system levels is a new

requirement, unique to CYEP. CYEF Prime Sponsors do not currently maintain

such detailed indicatorF in their MIS systems even if automated. This underlines the need for the participant tracking system described in part C before

CYEP planning and evaluation based ,. the EPR can become a reality.

Third, the credentialling aspect of CYEP emphasizes the need for Prime Sponsors

to develop measures that are accepted by the larger community. One element of

credentialling is addressed by efforts to arrange for the award of academic

credit for CETA-sponsored work experience. Although there has been progress
136

in this area since the enactment of YEDPA, certain difficulties continue.

CYEP broadens the scope of credentialling and makes the Prime Sponsor's

job even more complex.

The eight demonstration sites, as indicated in the FY 1980 CYEP plans,

have mapped out general approaches for developing program measures, certification, and credentialling. At the present time no detailed plans are available. Progress in the area will be discussed in the next Quarterly Report.

The program measurement, certification and credentialling area is likely

to be the most difficult aspect of DEP to implement over the next two

years. Credentialling may be difficult to establish with one local educational agency let alone with all local educational agencies in the Prime

Sponsor's jurisdiction. Yet the uniform application of measures throughout

the jurisdiction is called for under the CYEP design.

To date, observations show that Prime Sponsors are generally having difficulty defining both unit of service program measures and certification criteria.

Technical assistance is, therefore, required in each demonstration site.

E. ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES NECESSITATED BY CYEP

The CYEP process evaluation is to determine the extent to which the CYEP design

affects the systems and procedures used for program administration. Areas of

emphasis are:

Management information system

Financial management

Grant management

Administrative organization and staffing

During the first quarter of the evaluation, current administrative systems and

procedures have been documented, to the extent possible, and any changes
- 137 -

made or anticipated for CYEP have been identified. Observations in each

area are discussed below.

1. While CYEP Sites Agree That MIS Changes Are Necessary to Accomodate CYEP,

They Differ With Regard-to the Nature and Extent of These Changes.

Reports required for CYEP are significantly different from those required

for FY 1979 categorical youth programs. Old reporting categories have been

changed; new ones created and monthly rather than quarterly compilation of reports required although a quarterly schedule for submission of these

reports to the Department of Labor will be maintained.

At the time of the first site visit, each Prime Sponsor was still in the process

of planning the management information system necessary for CYEP. _The diversity

of changes that Prime Sponsors report they have made or anticipate making was

quite striking. In response to field observers' questions about MIS changes,

the following responses were given:

One site expected general redesign of MIS would be required.

Three sites expected significant changes in at least one

aspect of their current systems. (In two cases this was

needed for dual tracking of Title II8 youth, and in one

case it was needed for tracking the client pool and limited

services partidipants.)

While most, though not all, Prime Sponsors indicated that MIS

forms have or will be redesigned, there was no uniformity in

the forms mentioned. Examples are:

intake forms or applications

Status change forms

assessment forms

newly developed forms to track completions

In other areas of change, at least three Prime Sponsors anticipate that they

will need additional staff to meet CYEP reporting requirements. Two Prime

Sponsors which currently have manual systems are contemplating automation; two

other Prime Sponsors are moving to fully automated systems.
138

The diversity of changes made or anticipated reflect a number of factors.

First, current management information systems are diverse themselves which

naturally leads to differences in the changes necessary to accomodate CYEP.

Second, the changes are still being planned for the most part. At the time of

the site visit, none of the Prime Sponsors had worked out the mechanics of the

new system in detail; some had not yet confronted the question of precisely

what changes would be needed. Third, not all Prime Sponsors may yet realize

that their recordkeeping systems are currently organized on a very different

basis from that required to generate CYEP reports.

The diversity in the nature and extent of MIS changes necessary to accomodate

CYEP seems to be related also to different interpretations of the new requirements and terminology. A number of Prime Sponsor staff express a need for an

accepted reference like the Forms Preparation Handbook that defines terms and

procedures. All Prime Sponsors will soon begin to report under the new rubric

but the nature of the activities designated as, for example, Limited Services

or Pre-Employment Experience, may vary widely. Procedures, too, may vary to

such an extent that not only will Prime Sponsors use different methods for

calculating comparable data, they may calculate data which are not comparable.

Finally, some Prime Sponsors are reluctant to go too far in changing their

systems to accomodate CYEP because they feel that procedures or definitions may

be changed and they are not certain that regional office staff will recognize

the departures from standard practice required by CYEP reporting.

2. CYEP Implications for Financial Management Systems and Practices Have Not

Been Fully Identified by Prime Sponsors to Date.

The types oc financial management systems used by CYEP sites differ as their

MIS systems do. All sites are tied, to some extent, to manual accounting procedures, however. While several sites use automated financial systems, these
139

sites report persistent problems with the accuracy and timeliness of the

information generated by the automated systems. As a result, they maintain

parallel manual ledgers.

In most sites fiscal staff have had little input, to date, in CYEP planning

and in most cases these staff have only limited knowledge of CYEP and its

financial requirements. One exception is a case in which the Senior Planner

is also responsible for financial management as well as MIS. In all cases

fiscal staff have been asked to prepare trial budgets for CUT, and some

staff have participated in developing costs per participant estimates.

Great difficulty has been encountered at most sites in generating accurate

estimates of FY 1979 costs per participant for CYEP planning purposes and in

projecting costs for FY 1980. These problems can be traced to both structural

and operational factors. First, CYEP requirements for monthly aggregation

of costs per unit of service differ significantly from procedures currently

in place at most sites for quarterly aggregation of costs by FY 1979 categories.

Second, there appears to have been minimal interface in the past between MIS

and financial management for the purposes of generating "cost per participant"

data. Finally, persistent operational problems make it difficult to retrieve

financial data for management purposes in a timely manner.

Prime sponsor staff in most cases appear to be uncertain about the specific

procedural changes that would be necessary because of CYEP. These issues appear

to have been deferred until a final CYEP programmatic design is in place.

3. Prime Sponsor Staff Are Uncertain About the Impact of CYEP on Grant

Management.

Staff from most CYEP sites indicated some uncertainty about the long-range

impact of CYEP on grant management. Procedures under categorical programs for

1
- 140 -

grant preparation and modification are viewed as cumbersome and time consuming,

even though CYEP was initially expected to alleviate these problems. Primarily

because the CYEP planning process has been more complex than originally anticipated and because of the nature of CYEP reporting requirements, staff are

now uncertain, at best, that paperwork will be reduced under CYEP. Some are

convinced that CYEP will result in even more burdensome grant management.

4. CYEP Is Not Expected to Affect Prime Sponsor Administrative Organizational

Structure Significantly but Some Staff Additions or Reassignments are Planned.

In most cases, CYEP is not expected to bring about major changes in the

structure or the functions of administrative units. One Prime Sponsor will

transfer MIS from the fiscal unit to the planning unit. Another will develop

a planning and evaluation unit solely for services. These steps are being

taken to facilitate the more detailed planning required by CYEP.

All but one Prime Sponsor has added staff, or will do so, as a result of CYEP.

Additions to the MIS staff are expected at four sites; one of these will also

increase the number of fiscal staff. Two additional planners have been hired

by one Prime Sponsor; one may increase its fiscal staff ar' another Prime Sponsor hopes to hire a full-time youth coordinator. Two additional planners

for youth services are being requested by another site. The extent to which

these staffing needs reflect actual increases in workload rather than reallocation of responsibilities cannot be determined at this time.

The next chapter presents the individual case studies for each of the eight

demonstration sites. The case studies are organized as described in Chapter I.
CYEP PROCESS

EVALUATION

SECOND QUARTERLY

REPORT

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING

CORPORATION
- 142 -

II. CROSS-CUTTING 'SSW,

A number of issues relevant to CYEP have also 1...ee.1 IdeLkifif.' ;I .e. cut

across individual sites. Case studies of each cf taa CYEP sites are

..ailable from the Office of Youth Programs. These issues are germane to

the following priority areas of inquiry for the CYEP Process Evaluation:

Planning a consolidated, year-round, multi-year

youth program

Program description

Employability Plan and Record and CYEP Service

Agreement

Credentialling and program measurement

Administrative changes necessitated by the CYEP

design.

Relevant issues in each area are presented below.

A. Planning a Consolidated, Year-Round, lultiyear Youth Program

Information collected during the first quarter of CYEP implementation

points to three issues that appear to be related to hOW planning decisions

for CYEP have been made.

1. Priority Groups for Service Under CYEP in FY 1980 were Selected

Primarily Based on Analyses of Previous Enrollment Data, Local

76117ges, and Past Experience.

Labor market information available from external sources appears to have

had only a minimal role in selection of priority groups for CYEP services.

Most frequently CYEP sites have relied on locally established policies,

FY 1979 enrollment data and/or past experience in selecting significant
143

segments. In no case do sites express their priorties for service

to population groups with particular characteristics in quantitative

terms. At several sites, services for in-school youth are expected to

receive greater emphasis under CYEP than in the past.

2. Prime Sponsors Differed in Their Treatment of Title IV and

Title IIB Resources Available for Youth.

tAtferences in Prime Sponsor approaches to consolidation of services for

youth under Titles IV and IIB make any analysis of planned participant

,:nrollment levels and expenditures difficult. In some cases, CYEP

planned enrollments and expenditures appear to reflect consolidated

Efforts under both grants. In other cases CYEP data appears to represent

only Title IV, with minimal quantitative delineation of how Title IIB

resources are to be used. In several cases the scope of CYEP projections

cannot readily be determined.

3. Procurement Processes and Procedures for CYEP Were Similar

to Those Used for FY 1979.

A number of CYEP demonstration sites were engaged in subrecipient negotiations during the first quarter of FY 1980. For a few sites, all

arrangements for service delivery will not be finalized until January

of 1980. Regardless of whether a Prime Sponsor uses a sole source or

modified sole source contracting or a method which is technically competitive, in almost all cases the process used was the same for FY 1979

and FY 1980 and the subrecipients selected for FY 1980 were organizations which had been subrecipients in FY 1979.

a. Non-financial Agreements

Some Prime Sponsors reported that non-financial Agreements have been

negotiated with LEA's with which there had been on Agreements in the past.

16'?
144

No other new non-financial Agreements were reported. To the extent that

non-financial Agreements are vehicles for coordinating services, this

indicates that CYEP has thus far not widened the service network.

Non-financial Agreements with LEA's tended to be vague with regard to

roles and responsibilities, goals, target populations and services to

be provided. About half the sites reported difficulty in establishing

these Agreements. Some schools did not wish to be associared with CETA

or did not acknowledge the presence of disadvantaged youth their

district.

b. Contracts

At most sites, LEA's provide services as subrecipients. At some sites,

LEA's are the principal subrecipients. Contracts with subrecipient

agencies generally include:

Some statement of the goal of the services

to be provided

An indication of the target group to be

served

Units of service to be provided

Reporting requirements

Budget.

These contracts tend to be less specific or silent as to:

Performance standards

Measurable objectives

Participant flow

Management plan.

OJT contracts are generally quite specific with regard to roles and

responsibilities, goals and training to be provided. Most Prime
- 145 -

Sponsors utilize an outside agency to develop individual OJT opportunities and contracts. In some areas, it is reported to be difficult

to find employers who are willing to provide OJT to youth.

B. Program Description

This section provides a cross-site analysis of CYEP FY 1980 program

designs and of the interviews conducted with CYEP Work Experience site

supervisors and participants. This analysis is intended to give a

preliminary indication of CYEP as it was being implemented during the

first quarter of FY 1980.

This section also presents analyses of FY 1979 sampled participant

records and aggregate participant characteristics, enrollment and

expenditures data. These findings will serve as baseline information

for comparison with CYEP data as the demonstration continues.

1. CYEP Program Designs Generally Emphasize More Intensive

Assessment, Expansion of the Rangy of Services, and

Improvements of Existing Services.

CYEP program designs consistently reflect an increased emphasis on participant assessment. In some cases, intake, previously decentralized, has

been centralized. In one case, receiving applications and determining

eligibility has been separated from counseling and assessment. A variety

of such steps have been taken, usually for the purpose of providing more

intensive and individualized planning and assessment for the participants.

Most sites plan to offer the full range of units of service under CYEP.

While the nature of the services added differs from one site to another,

there appears to be expanded overall emphasis on structured career exploration and labor market orientation activities and expanded use of educational

options.

1°0
146

Sites differ with regard to their views on what constitutes a given

unit of service, what types of participants are most appropriately

assigned to each unit and at what point in a continuum of services

that assignment should occur. There is almost universal agreement,

however, on the increased flexibility CYEP is providing for designing

these service strategies to fulfill individual needs rather than

arbitrary grant requirements. Several sites report that the project

Work Experience approach used under YCCIP was very successful.

Expanded use of this approach is being incorporated into CYEP.

2. The Majority of CYEP Enrollments and Expenditures Are

Ex ected to Occur in Services Traditionallyprovided

and ew Changes Have Been Made in Delivery Agents.

In most cases, CYEP sites are allocating the largest proportion of

their financial resources to units of service they have provided in

the past, with particular emphasis on the Work Experience option.

Projected enrollments are correspondingly high in these areas. In

addition, CYEP service delivery arrangements show little change from

FY 1979. Most subrecipients are those who have provided services under

previous programs and sites that traditionally provide the bulk of

their services directly will continue to do so.

Data collected at the subrecipient or operational level indicate that

little distinction is made at that level between CYEP and previous

categorical programs. Minimal changes in the nature of services are

expected. Contributing factors appear to be:

Service delivery arrangements had to be completed

prior to full incorporation of CYEP concepts

Subrecipients or Operations staff are still not fully

aware of the changes anticipated by the Prime Sponsor

or CYEP planning staff
147

Changes that 'ccur for FY 1980 may, in fact, have

minimal impac.on the nature of the more traditional

units of service.

Actual implementation of CYEP concepts at the operational level will

continue to be tracked and reported in subsequent reports.

3. Participants Are Generally Positive About

Their Experiences in C1EP.

The impressions fifty-two CYEP participants have of their experiences

in CYEP are summarized in this part. Using an interview guide, field

observers attempted to engage CYEP participants in conversation, primarily at the worksite, and solicit from participants their attitudes

toward CYEP and their work in the program. Given the informal nature of

the interviews, some items had no response and these nonresponses varied

from individual to individual. The terms and language used by each

Prime Sponsor and each worksite differed and also increased interviewing

difficulty.

A discussion of each site's participant interviews is found in the

Chapter III individual case study for that site. Both participant and

worksite supervisor interviews are discussed together, and offer some

comparison between their responses. The points summarized below add to

the understanding of current efforts at CYEP worksites.

The fifty-two young people interviewed reflected

a good sampling of demographic and social

characteristics.

Almost 60 percent (57.7) of the young people interviewed were enrolled

in CETA before CYEP began. Approximately 58 percent of those inte!viewed

were white, 28 percent were black, 10 percent were Hispanic and 2 percent,

respectively, wcce Native American and Asian American. Of those responding

to a question about age, approximately 7 percent were 14-15 years old,
- 148 -

43 percent were ages 16-17, 40 percent were ages 18-19 and 10 percent

were 20-21. Slightly over three-fourths (76.9 percent) of those interviewed were female. Of those who responded to a question about school

status, approximately 2 percent-were in the eighth grade, 6 percent were

first-year high school students, 13 percent were juniors and 26 percent

were seniors. Another 13 percent were high school graduates, and 40

percent were school dropouts. Participants were reluctant to indicate

other characteristics about themselves. Of the forty-two who responded,

approximately 5 percent were youthful offenders and handicapped, respectively, and 19 percent were female heads of households.

Participants found out about CYEP through a variety

of sources; all indicated they received some basic

intake and assessment services.

From those participants responding, family and friends appeared to be

important referral sources. Approximately one-fourth (25.5 percent) of

these participants were told about CYEP or CETA by a friend. Nearly 15

percent were told by a relative. Slightly over one-fifth (21.3 percent)

found out about CYEP through a school teacher or counselor. A similar

number were referred by the local employment service and 17 percent were

recruited by CYEP or CETA staff.

Most participants recalled that they filled out forms when they first

entered CYEP. Approximately one-third were assisted in completing

the forms by a relative; another one-third were assisted by the CYEP

interviewer or counselor. All remembered being asked questions about

their background and demographic and personal interest questions.

Approximately 40 percent of the participants interviewed remembered

taking tests when they oitered the program; 50 percent said they remembered no testing; 10 percent did not respond. Unfortunately, few of
- 149 -

those who took tests could describe-the nature of the tests given.

Approximately one-fifth (21.2 percent) recalled participating in program

workshops during the intake and assessment period. Slightly over onethird (34.6 percent) remembe "ed that they had participated in program

counseling sessions.

It appeared that basic intake and assessment services varied according

to the participants, arc, that active participant involvement through

workshops or counseling sessions during this period included at best

approximately ha'f of those interviewed.

Participants have worked in limited types of

worksites and have learned skills as well as

work attitudes.

Of those participants responding, nearly one-half or 48 percent work Li

office and one-fourth (24 percent) worked in preschool or child development programs. Approximately 16 percent cited hospitals as worksites,

8 percent worked in maintenance and 4 percent worked at construction

sites.

When asked what they had learned at the job, over one-half (51.9 percent)

of the participants said job skills. Another 36.5 percent mentioned work

attitudes and behavior, and l' said both. Examples of the job skills

mentioned included clerical and office procedures, working with children

and paraprofessional health work, as well as a variety of worksite specific

tasks.

About one-half of the participants felt they were learning somethinv that

would help them at their worksite; one-half thought the CYEP work experience

would help them in their schooling. The other participants did not respond.
150

When asked what they liked best, approximately two-thirds of those

interviewed mentioned wages. About one-half also said the opportunity

to work. Responses, when asked what they liked least, were generally

nonresponses such as "getting up in the morning."

It appeared that participants generally felt they were learning skills

to use at the worksite and/or learning skills at the worksite which would

help them in school. Wages seemed to be the most positive factor for

the participants interviewed.

Career and future work plans varied? but most

participants thought participation in CYEP

would help them achieve their goals.

When asked what kind of job they would like when they are twenty-five,

slightly over one-fifth mentioned clerical jobs. Nearly one-fifth

(17.3 percent) wanted to work with children as teachers or day care

workers; 5.8 percent mentioned wanting jobs in the construction trades,

and 7.7 percent mentioned work in the health professions and undefined

counselor jobs, respectively. Other responses included working as flight

attendant, salesperson, journalist, police officer or cosmetologist.

Nearly three-fourths (71 percent) of all participants interviewed felt

that their CYEP experience would help them move toward their employmenc

goals; only ten percent felt the CYEP experience would not help. Nearly

one-fifth (19 percent) did not respond.

According to the majority of participants, CYEP experience is helping

them move toward employment goals. Wages in particular and the opportunity to work are the most positive aspects of the CYEP, from the participants' points of view. Skills learned on the job appear to be valued

to some degree not only for meeting worksite responsibilities but also

in relationship to school work.
- 151 -

4. CYEP Worksite Supervisors Are Often Located in LongEstablished Worksites and Experience Infrequent

Monitoring by Prime Sponsor Staff with Respect to

Their Performance.

This section summarizes the observations of thirty wor!es;tt supervisors

interviewed informally during the second and third site Using

interview protocols, the field observers conducted interviews with four

supervisors at each of seven sites and with two supervisors at one site.

A discussion of the worksite supervisor interviews at each site will be

found in the Chapter III individual case study section.

The majority of worksites and worksite supervisors

interviewed had previous experience with CETA, and

worksite supervisors felt that CYEP participants

helped them perform their work.

Of those worksites visited, almost two-fifths (37 percent) had employed

CETA participants for more than three years. One-fourth (26 percent)

had employed CETA participants for an average of two and one-half years

and 30 percent for an average of one and one-half years. Only four

percent had employed CETA participants for less than one year.

For those supervisors responding to a question about their experience in

supervising CETA/CYEP participants, over one-fourth (27 percent) reported

supervising CETA youth for more than three years. Another 20 percent have

supervised CETA/CYEP participants for an average of two and one-half years;

approximately one-fourth (27 percent) reported supervising for an average

of one and one-half years. Approximately 16 percent of the supervisors

have supervised CETA/CYEP youth for less than one year.

About three-fourths (76.7 percent) of the supervisors went on to explain

why they chose to supervise young people Over two-fifths (43.5 percent)

responded that they wanted and/or needed extra help. Approximately
- 152 -

one-fifth (21.7 percent) reported they supervised because of a personal

interest in working with CETA youth; 40 percent of this particular group

also mentioned that they themselves were former CETA participants and

felt a special commitment to the program. Thirteen percent of the supervisors reported a professional interest in supervising CETA youth, that

they learned more about youth in general and disadvantaged youth in

particular. Approximately one-fifth (21.7 percent) stated they had no

choice; they were told to supervise CETA participants or it was a part

of their job description.

Slightly over three-fourths (77 percent) of the worksite supervisors

stated that CETA/CYEP participants helped them perform their work. Many

supervisors reported that their worksites were understaffed and CETA

provided the necessary staff. Said one supervisor, "We're a small

agency. Without the CETA worker, we could not get the work done."

Approximately 17 percent indicated that the CYEP participant's ability

to perform simple but necessary clerical and organizational tasks allowed

professional and support staff to complete priority work. For example,

one day care center reported that the CYEP participant took over classroom responsibility and this provided time for the teacher to complete

paperwork and meet with parents. A supervisor in a state job service

office reported that the CYEP participant was able to perform basic

office functions; professional and support staff could therefore concentrate on priority work responsibilities.

When asked about problems in providing employment opportunities to

CETA participants, approximately 60 percent of the worksite supervisors
153

said that there were no problems. Slightly over ore-fourth of

the supervisors reported that a major problem is the time it

takesfor -the-works-i-te --to-trainthe-GE-TA participant. Most of these

individuals then complained at losing the "trained" participant when

his/her placement at the worksite ended. Approximately 13 percent

of the supervisors stated that they were not able to train some

participants, that the participants lacked discipline or motivation.

In general, worksite supervisor; felt that CYEP participants performed

useful tasks. These worksite supervisors were, for the most part,

experienced supervisors of CETA/CYEP youth participants.

School or government offices were the most common

worksites; clerical or office _practice was the

predominant occupational skill learned by CYEP

participants.

A combination of work skills and work attitude

training and emotional support were mentioned as

other services worksite supervisors provided.

Of those supervisors responding, approximately 30 percent of worksites

were elementary, high school or college offices. Another 30 1)(;rxf,'; cil the worksites were local, state or federal offices. Twel,c, r.lmcent )f

the worksites were day care centers; 8 percent were child care ams for special needs children. Another 8 percent of the workites w

hospitals.

The day care and child care worksite supervisors felt that thPic. CYE:"

participants were learning entry level child care and paraprofessional

career skills. Worksite supervisors in hospitals felt that participants

learnt d a mixture of office procedure and other paraprofessional health

care services. Most of the office supervisors felt that participants

received training in sucri clerical skills as typing, filing and other

1 7 /
- 154 -

office work. Over one-half (53 percent) of the supervisors felt they

taught general work attitudes and behaviors. "Deportment, cooperation,

promptness, good dress and social skills" were often mentioned as things

learned at the worksite in addition to or even instead of specific occupational skills. One-third of the worksite supervisors cited providing

emotional support or advice to CYEP participants as an addit:ori:1 service.

Seven percent of the supervisors reported encouraging educatiLn and improving participant communications skills.

11na'oritof.aritsweremonitoredatthe worksitel*Prsta;ei onethird of the supervisors had their performance

monitored by the Prime Sponsor.

Nearly two-thirds of the supervisors (60 percent) said thy the Prime

Sponsor staff monitored the performance of young people at the worksite.

Sixty percent of these supervisors reported that the parricivnts' rerformance was monitored monthly at the worksite. the remainder Fa:d that

the worksites were visited no less than twice a year by the P-iwe Sponsor

staff. Approximately 39 percent of the supervisors reprdrting that participant worksite performance was monitored by Prime staff indicated

that participants received feedback directly from the Prime Sponsor staff.

Participants for the most part received feedback or their performance

from the worksite supervisor. Thirty percent of the supervisors said

participants were not monitored at the worksita Ly Prime Sponsor staff;

10 percent did not know or did not respond.

Approximately 30 percut of the supervisors indicat,A that their performance was monitored by Prime Sponsor staff. One-third of these supervisors

reported receiving feedback about their perfrwmance from Prime Sponsor

staff.
- 155 -

Worksite supervisor suggestions for improving the

CYEP program focused on planning, coordination

and the participant selection process.

Nearly one-fourth (23.3 percent) of the supervisors interviewed said

that no improvements should be made in the CYEP program. Over one-third

(36.7 percent) indicated that improvements should be made in the program.

Of these nearly one-half (46 percent) sutlgasted that better planning and

coordination would improve the program. Thil ..y-six percent felt there

should be better participant selection criteria and/or a better selection

process for worksite assignments. Nine percent mentioned that participants needed more support services, including career awareness.

Forty percent of the supervisors either did not know what improvements

should be made or did not respond.

In summary, most of the worksites were established two or more years ago.

Most of the supervisors were not new to supervising CETA/CYEP participants.

Clearly, the majority of the supervisors felt that CETA/CYEP participants

helped them perform their work. Few supervisors have had their performance

as CETA/CYEP supervisors monitored ana even fewer have received direct feedback from Prime Sponsor staff. The primary focus of both the supervisors

and Prime Sponsor staff appeared to be participant performance.

5. A Sample of FY 1979 Participant Records Indicates

Little Long-Range Employability Development.

A random sample of FY 1979 participant records was drawn at each site to

pruvide baseline data for a comparison of categorical and consolidated

youth programs. Detailed analysis of the data for each site is presented

in the case studies. This section of the report presents a cross-site

analysis of the data, which indicates,:
- 156 -

Enrollment by Title/Subpart appears to reflect

participants' age, sex and school status regardless of site; other characteristics vary more

widely, either by program or by site

Participaiion in CETA is relatively short-term.

At six sites, terminated participants in the

sample had been in CETA an average of six months

or less

To tne extent that records reflect process, in

the pat,t,Prime Sponsors have given minimal attention to employability development which integrates

assessment, goal-setting and planning of service

strategies, or to evaluation of the relationship

between goals, service strategies and outcomes.

a. Enrollment Patterns Appear to Reflect Participants'

Age, Sex and School Status, Regardless of Site;

Other Characteristics Vary More Widely, Eithert.v.

Program or by Site.

Significant differences between and similarities among the characteristics

of participants at different sites c:'.n be summarized as follows:

School Status

YCCIP participants at all but one site are

out-of-school dropouts

SYEP is predominantly a program for in-school

youth at all sites

Title IIB is predominantly an out-of-school

program at all but one site. Unlike out-ofschool YCCIP and YETP youth, a high percentage

of IIB out-of-school youth are high school

graduates

YETP is a program for in-school youth at four

sites, an out-of-school program at two sites

and serves about equal percentages of out-ofschool and in-school youth at two sites. YETP

out-of-school youth are usually dropouts.

Age

-- 16-17 year-olds are the majority or the single

largest age group served at six sites; 18-19

year-olds are the largest single age group at

one site; 20-21 year-olds at another site

14-15 year-olds are concentrated in, or are only

wirolled in, SYEP at six of the eight sites
157

- - The sample at one site included no 20-21

year-olds.

Sex

At all eight sites, the majority of YCCIP

participants are male; at four sites, all

of the YCCIP participants in the sample

are male

At seven sites, the majority of IlB participants are male; at three sites from 61% to

67 % are male

The percentage of females enrolled at each

site ranges from 32% to 56%, less than half

the participants are female at five of the

eight sites

At six sites, the percentage of females

enrolled in SYEP is higher than the percentage

of participants at that site who are female.

Ethnicity

- -

MOD

1

At two sites, 75% or more of the participants

in the sample are black; at four sites, 10%

or less are black and at the remaining two

sites, blacks comprised 18-28% of the sample

At half the sites, the percentage of blacks

was highest in YCCIP and SYEP

The percentage of blacks in II8 ranges from

zero (two sites) to 67% (one site). At three

sites, the percentage of blacks in the sample

is at least 20% higher than the percentage of

blacks in IIB

The sample at three sites includes no Hispanics;

at another three sites, 13% or less are Hispanic.

The highest percent of Hispanics at any site

is 35%

At the two sites where 30% or more of the

sample are Hispanic, 8% or less are black.

At the two sites where 75% or more of the

sample are black, none of the participants

in the sample is Hispanic.
- 158 -

Income

- - Overall, the percentage of economically disadvantaged participants varies from 30% to

100% across sites; at five sites the percentage

is 88% or higher

-- At three sites, all participants in all programs

are economically disadvantaged. At the five

other sites, the percentage of economically

disadvantaged participants in IIB ranges from

50% (two sites) to 77% (two sites, 70% or more);

in SYEP from 67% to 100% (three sites 75% or

more); in YETP from zero to 95% (three sites 75%

or more and only two sites below 67%); and in

YCCIP from 17% at one site to 100% at two sites

- - The percentage of public assistance recipients

at each site varies from 6% to 59%. The percentage of youth at a site who are public aid

recipients appears to be unrelated to the percentage of participants at that site who are

economically disadvantaged.

Other Characteristics

Heads of households make up 10% or more of the

participants in the sample at five sites. At

one site, 43% of the participants are heads of

households

At five sites, 4% or less of the sample are

handicapped; at no site is the percentage of

handicapped greater than 144, although at five

sites from 8% to 37% of the participants in one

of the Titles/Subparts are handicapped

13% or less of the participants sampled at each

site are offenders; at five sites, from 18% to

33% of the participants in one of the Titles/

Subparts are offenders.

Title/Subpart

- - Older, white, male high school graduates tend

to be enrolled in Title IIB

YCCIP is predominantly a program serving dropout male youth

SYEP tends to be a program for younger, inschool youth.
- 159 -

b. Participation in CETA Appears to be Relatively

Short-Term.

Information on the average duration of participation in CETA by Title/

Subpart is summarized in Table II-1, below.

Table II-1

Average Duration of Participation in CETA by Site

Title/

Part A B C D E F G H Summary

ALL 2-3 mo 4-6 mo. 4-6 mo. 4-6 mo. 6-7 mo. 2-3 mo. 2-3 mo. 6-7 mo. 2-3 mo.--3 sites

4-6 mo.--3 sites

6-7 mo.--2 sites

IIB 2-4 mo. 2-4 mo. 2-4 mo. 5-7 mo. 9 mo. 5-7 ma. 2-4 mo. 5-7 mo. 2-4 mo.--4 sites

5-7 mo.--3 sites

9 mo.--1 site

YETP 3-4 mo. 6-8 mo. 6-8 mo. 3-4 mo. 6-8 mo. 3-4 mo. 3-4 mo. 6-8 ma. 3-4 mo.--4 sites

6-8 mo.--4 sites

YCCIP 1-3 mo. 4-6 mo. 4-6 mo. 1-3 mo. 1-3 mo. 1-3 mo 1-3 mo. 11 mo. 1-3 co.--5 sites

4-6 no. - -2 sites

11 mo.--1 site

SYEP 1/2-2 mo.11/2-2 mo. 3-4 mo.11/2-2 mo. 3-4 mo. 3-4 moA1/2-2 mo. Not 11/2-2 mo.--4 sites

avail- 3-4 mo.--3 sites

able

As the table above shows:

At six of the eight sites, the average duration of

participation in CETA for terminated participants

was six months or less; at no site did the average

exceed seven months

Length of participation by Title/Subpart varies among

sites. At four sites, participants in YETP had the

longest average duration of enrollment; at three sites,

average duration of enrollment was longest in IIB,

at one site, average duration was longest in YCCIP

Average duration of enrollment in IIB ranges from

2 to 9 months; in YETP from 3 to 71/2 months; in YCCIP

from 11 to 6 months and in SYEP from 11/2 to 4 months.
160

Re-enrollment following termination is the exception rather than the rule.

At three sites, it appears that none of the participants had been enrolled

in CETA previously. At four other sites, from 8 percent to 15 perccnt of

the participants in the sample had been in CETA before. Data on previous

participation in CETA was not available at one site.

The average duration of activities is difficult to establish because the

data is limited and duration of participation in an activity is partly a

function of the Title/Subpart which funds the activity. Based on sample

data, average duration of enrollment in Classroom Training appears to range

from 21/2 to 101/2 months; Work Experience from 21/2 to 5 months and OJT from

1 to 11 months.

The sampled FY 1979 participant records indicate that the modal pattern

has been enrollment in one activity under one Title/Subpart, followed by

termination after six months or less:

At four sites, 10% or less of the participants had

transferred from one Title/Subpart to another; at

no site did the percentage of transfers exceed 25%

Only 6% of the participants in the sample were enrolled in concurrent or sequential activities; at

no site did the percentage exceed 10% and concurrent or sequential enrollments in YCCIP and SYEP

are virtually nonexistent.

c. To the Extent That Records Reflect Process, in the

Past, Prime Sponsors Have TriTen Little Attention to

Employability Development Planning or to the

Evaluation of Employability Development Strategies.

The sample data on duration of participation, re-enrollment, transfers and

sequential activities suggest that the use of long-range employability

development strategies has been minimal or nonexistent. Furthermore, at

seven of the eight sites, participant files for one or more Titles/Subparts

do not contain enough information on assessment, planned activities or
- 161 -

participants' goals to evaluate the processes of assessing participants,

estatsishing goals and planning activities to meet those goals. These

activities may have occurred at these sites but they have not been

documented, nor has their effectiveness been measured by the Prime

Sponsors. Similarly, the information necessary to compare goals and

service strategies with outcomes is so limited that no generalizations

based on the sample data can be made here.

6. FY 1979 Data Indicates That Prime Sonsors Provided

xtensive Wor Experience ervices an. xpended Funds

Most Heavily During the Fourth Quarter.

Traditional patterns of units of service and expenditures were follrmed

by the eight Prime Sponsorships. Exhibit II-1 graphically illustrates

the patterns of enrollment during FY 1979.

Average enrollment was largest in the third quarter

of FY 1979 due primarily to the influence of

Limited Services provided at one site.

Each CYEP unit of service, except Skill Training and Pre-Employment

Experience, was provided by at least one Prime Sponsor during FY 1979.

Limited Services provided at Site B averaged approximately 75 percent of

the total enrollment during the first three quarters of FY 1979. Work

Experience followed, averaging about 10 percent of total enrollment; Skill

Training and Work Experience and Education had 4 percent and 3 percent,

respectively, of total enrollment. Combined units of service, particularly

units of service including OJT, had few of the total enrollments reported.

Frequently, the combined units of service were provided at just one or

two sites, sometimes for only part of the fiscal year.

With the exception of the Limited Services prosiram, the

Work Experience unit of service and Work Experience

combined with another service representa-the maprituf

FY 1979 total enrollments and expeOitures.
11,

3

2

1

AVERAGE FT Mt MuNTvir ENAOLLANTS IT UNIT OF SERVICE (ALL SITES CITSINED{

-..4

_..

lee

111

les--

ExHIBIT II-1 OM

IIMI

11

_, OJT

SKILL MINING

EMOTION iii

111-

leeones.

..., , PRE-ENPLOSSIIT

EXPERIENCE

.Mr. SsrivrIcromy 1I lie ..... waft IMMO AND MINTS

1111

?KILL WORK EXPERIENCE AND e

Ie alli

MI

1

eil ossese

EDUCATION INII 811.2-- WORK EXPERIENC AND PNE4NPLOSIENT MIME

_...11 \

lee OJT TRAIN'S{ NS

SKILL TRAIN'S'

111

I

SU or TRAINING

"w' AND EDUCATION

se. -.---

,...... OJT MINIMA NO PRE

INFLOINOIT EXPERIENCE

'SKILL MINIM'

NOTE: NO AVERAGE MONTHLY ammularts IN

SKILL TRAINING A110 P1E-ENPLOTNENT NO EDUCATION EXPERIENCE I.-.11 --------- 4111--

EDUCATION NS PIE

001.1711TENT 1101111ENCE .... LINIIIII SERVICES

1111.1...n".--

.m ""

a, ...., 11114111H an. olkore

..... _____

............ .,

1211111%1

"NeMF41 11

ro a. ""Par orT

re

re

re

ill

SO AM

ill'IKIL

.41411

41 41111/

III

.:

N,

...........

............. Mr11 - ....".....1111= ....... IIIII. .....

......... ......

OCT IN III 111 no
163

Exhibit 11-2 below displays the average quarterly total enrollment for

FY 1979, both including and excluding Limited Services. When Limited

Services is included in the quarterly average total enrollment, the

traditional build-up of enrollment through the fourth quarter is not

discernible. By excluding Limited Services, the gradual increase in

average total enrollment is evident.

EXHIBIT 11-2: Quarterly Average Total Enrollment

Percentages

121911. 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. 4th Qtr.

With Limited Services 19.6 31.5 36.2 12.6

Without Limited Services 15.5 19.4 29.2 35.9

Excluding Limited Services, average enrollment in many units of service

increased dramatically during the fourth quarter of FY 1979. Table 11-2

on the following page indicates a drop in average total enrollment for

the fourth quarter due to the end of Limited Services. Work Experience

average total enrollment in July 1979 increased over four times the

average total enrollment in June, from 778 to 3,380. Enrollment increases

during the fourth quarter occurred in most units of service, particularly

Work Experience and Education, Education and Skill Training. These increases were due to the Summer Youth Employment Programs that normally

geared up in June 1979. Only Skill Training and Education and Education

and Pre-Employment Experience showed declining enrollment for the fourth

quarter.

Table 11-2 shows a decline in enrollment for most units of service in

September 1979. One possible explanation for the decline is that with

the advent of CYEP, sites may have decided not to enroll new participants

until the CYEP program design and structure was in place. One site
MU 11.1

I RACE rt 1919 NEM ENROLLMENTS or UNIT Of SERVICE (All SITES c

AVERAGE FY '79 NT MONTHLY

OF' EMPLOY SERVICE

OCT NO1 DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT

0 1 A,q Ili

ia if

_12 i',9

4.8,1 it

_11110.

/7f 1 ii

WI

I

4201121

JO di

,iff SD

g el

91 It

I

719114

Iii

192

0

m

%

19

,iD

)1

.12

lk

01

0

1 %

leo 'DJ

13 2

)11 n

41 0,1

0 S

Pi 27

T

141 11

21 od

I 1

fiq ti

in 12

_,14 te

71 a

1 el

I 1 1-

9' '

1.51 11

Jai 3o

.0 a

.$7 Li

I I

I

1 I

id 1'

PI 11

70 1.7

q 0

1111

i

'I , god 11

lal 1,1

11 11t

41 i,i1

I S

I

;, I #91 z

390 '0

46 4

0 09

f 1

i

g Ji

PO Pot.

in li

II%

1 Illilt 44

2111 lid

I MI It

111 iI

1 1

Ill

j

49d ,g2

illlIid

ism 1)

I 41 itsi

1 111 I

WORK EXPERIENCE COREA TRAINING

SKILL RAINING

EDUCATION

PRE-ERMINE EXPERIENCE 141iLAUL2411,

se9 9,1,$)9

;411 q

1.1J,Lia

x 461_114

1 10.6

__14 ;

41,

lith

i

6

of

h.9

Ili

p./

0

jp 9.1

iii IL

i_?

SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY Al 17

Ve _21

Lit

_fill

,11 61

pi 20

i(l

__YLL

1 71 11,1

api If

el 21

v;

1727

li

u

_j..1

D.0

0

IS

it

10f 2Z

1 .). 4,1

g 1 _j_.

iill

o.1

1 64

4_I__Q

elY-4-il-11--li 4(4

1i 'l 17

WORK EXPERIENCE AND

SKILL TRAINING

/911 IS

1 /51 13

2AL

g

_1,1_11

1 Iiill

I 01

OK EXPERIT'CE AND MOTION

9 11

I .1

in

1.___LL.

WORK EXPERIENCE AND

PRE- EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

1 j P 11

I LI di

1 .../1 j_j_

1 , _LIR_

1 _ILL

I 2L1 LC

1

1,11 ,(iii_

1 _./111

1 I.1 0

i II L.

1 il ill

s 11 0,1

ON.TME.JOB TRAINING AND

SKILL TRAINING

.4

_t1,1.

4_01

0 0

a

1 24 a1 11.1 o) 19u1,11.

I

0

4

1 iil 6,1

01141400 PAINING AND DUCAT!)

I 41 Di 1

ILL

0.D

, ,i

012--111 it

1 LLD

1 I 1

I /

id d

1

1 71201

_filildg

I1 At

( 1 1

ON-THE-JOB TRAINING AND

PIKE- EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

1 ,..Q 1.j.

I liti_At.

viI 0,7

"1

ilfillz

1 S2flai

1 01 0

SKILL TAAINING AND

PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE # Ai I

1 11L2

741 _a____711

1 oolgiiiiiii47400.2

1 "LL

1.1

liallab

SKILL TRAINING AND EDUCATION

,

ift

Slail

iiilloto

xil.a.moisii..

gifill

11219,1fie

EDUCATION AND

PRE-RAIMENT EXPERIENCE

e

lig 1.41

1 10 Hfizelikge

0' 0

_.(2_11

gaiiii.424.1)1i

1 ,

1 fa47,1.i

SUBTOTAL

I 61_ 6

a MOM])

LIMITED SERVICES 071111

ji.5/71/1/0 fii,hve 4-/V1!//20 S ?hi NO ,r49.1mD11111,110 TOTAL
165

reported that staff tried to "close out" the FY 1979 programs by terminating participants and subsequently re-enrolling the young people in

CYEP. Another possible factor influencing the total enrollment decline

may have been that transition from summer youth employment programs to

CYEP did not include all SYEP terminated participants.

Over 90 percent of CETA youth participants enrolled

in units of service other than Limited Services in

FY 1979 were economically disadvantaged.

The percentage of all participants who were economically disadvantaged

is shown in Exhibit 11-3, below. Excluding Limiter.; Services, most young

people who participated in Title III and Title II8 grams were reported

to be economically disadvantaged.

EXHIBIT 11-3: Economically Disadvantaged as a Percer.tz,

of FY 1979 Total Enrollment::

1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr, 4th Qtr.

With Limited Services 31 26 3C 96

Without Limited Services 99 91 92 96

Approximately 44 percent of all economically disadvantaged youth enrolled

were in the Work Experience unit of service .!.s indicated in Table 11-3 and

Exhibits 11-4 through 11-7. Limited Services represented about 15 percent

of the economically disadvantaged e:Jollmet.cs during ;he first three quarters

of FY 1979. Skill Training revzsented services to 11 percent of those:

economically disadvantaged enrollments and 6 percent of the total enrollments. A higher proportion of economically disadvantaged were enrolled in

Work Experience and Education, Work Experience and Skill Training and 0,r

when compared to total enrollment in these units cf service. Work Experience

and Pre-Employment Experience economically disadvantaged enrollments

1j\of a
PALE 11.3

ESTIMATED 11 1919 QUARTERLY TOTAL Of MONTHLY EMOLLIENTS SERVED IT ETHNIC CROUP AND Cl!10111Cilll DISMIANTE0 STATUS

IN UNIT Of SERVICE (ill SITES COMBINED)'

FY '79 PARTICIPANTS

BY ETHNIC GAWP

AND ECONOMIC UNIT DISADV OF SERVICE

1S1 QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR

NN NISP (CO 015 NM NISP ECO OIS NM NISP (CO 015 IN R1SP ECO 015

V I 1 I I 1 I I, 117T-TS

071 Itol

Aoll 14,

J111 ..t3

//o1 /.4' r-----t

401 ad

RI o.,r

F---

Ill

I I I

I % J

, %

1

, S

1

oK EXPERIENCE

I

1 /, 4411 ,11/

I ,igfida(to 11/0

1

.1,4441 If/ I OW /kf,

J.71 I.R

1 34 /4

a 1 ,,,+/

al i

1/ I 0.11

1 d 1/41Je.,4

J.071 4.1i

1 fell 11.4

44)i .t.a*

471' /.7

II91 /

1 Losil 41.9

1 4411%9./

1 .41 /:1

1441 1.i

4/1 1,1

oo. 7 I o4

0:0,11

4/6t1 1,144

Jai

..../4_,:.... 41

14 440

/4

A.*

go

a

to

J.I

0111

1 417114'1 94tirroU

, 1 ft.#41SAI

014.111E40B TRAINING 1 .4111 l.t!

14/ i.ii

1 d3i, .1.1

.44' J.

1 Poi 9.1

1 1414 At.?

41 .11

1 dal J.si

04) ooU

/.

f4:LI 1 a/

41/1 04

,usi 44.o WI II I

I211, I.

1 9.01 ' 41 0.d -I1 sii 1.1

VI 4.4

if 'Id

J 04

I 0.0

4#4 #.1

idlog L.11

44010 J.°

old 01.6

m 0./

SKILL TRAINING

EDUCATION ii /.4 40 .1.4

PRE - EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE JO O.7 0 o WI /J

SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY II al i oil

t----

941 /,7

OK EXPERIENCE AM

SKILL TRAINING ii 1.,1 ji di 1 nil I.'

1 ,1441 Ft..? 1

1,t7I 441

1 al 0.4

II

iii

1

0

/.t

4.7

1 krill 71 1--

ti /41) fo

-1"

JOI J,, -I--

jg71 Mt

di al

ii..7 ii.si

__.#1

07

7'i

#1/11 4.#

9/7i /0.1

041 i#x

1.

d/4I /4.9

/al 99

ILth /AU.

la 40

OK EXPERIENCE RC

EDUCATION .199 0 mi ti I nil al

0

-r--

ill 01

I 171 0.4 0 a

4 .I 0

/19 /.4 7--

44 0 4

WORK EXPERIENCE AND 419 , 711 IQ

PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE Al 6.3 / 0.1

I 4g41 0.1

1 Ji 0,0 0 0 .141 0.4 I 0 0

I a 0

I 01 ON -TIE -JOB TRAINING AND o JI 0.4

SKILL TRAINING

I

0 I 0 --1- LiI J1 0,

a

0

Ks

1 /.2I a.3

011THE-JOB TRAINING AND

EDUCATION o

1 SO / 0

1 Al 0.1 l_.__ 0 0 /t171 .' / f ,./ 0 0 /1/

I o #.1

1 01 0

I c,Lo

171 tf.1.,

J I 0 0

J

'

CW.THE-3011 TRAINING AND

PRE - EMPLOYMENT EXPENIE10E 0 I p 0 0 li 6./

1 010

I /401 1 I

, 1 PO 0,7

1 v;//fluil

+441 1 i "'" dmilive.0

I 6 1 i a

0 o if 0, 071 0,41

.7IPII J73

JI I 1.

11.91 eA.7

7,401140.0

a 0

00

3 4.1

/9 0.7

7k.f? +79

4 9401 Act

,1,60 100.0

11 #./ o a 0 a # 0.0 a 1 o

SKILL TRAINING AND

PRE EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

1 410

1 /,11li 0.3

I MI O..,

1 Adi4 kfdr

1 Aall $474

i AilI ,,,,D

00

J 0.3

I 71 0.1

I 641) +t4.9

,,,,1

i firrti

4'10!/00,e

10:0 c 0 0 0 41 0

1

1 a 1 a

, 41 #4

r

4111 0.1

1 Lc' . la

i /Mel /1

7957

I Il

, Arej 0.,

I ogl 0.4

1 gool 03.7

tit o.4

If 1 6. 4

i, oto .34.1

1 04i 0,1

I __VA o...4:

1 ',NI lid

ili 0,0

Jsi 0.4

toe is

I 41 O./

1 Al / 1

1 241471164

I 0 1 a 6417I 10.0

/41 0,/

411 0.11

SKILL TRAINING

AND EDUCATION SUCCOR AND

PREEMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE 1 14441k"

d I 0

I 144/1 Meta

RITUAL

I 4)ifis4J

ii 77411 40.01,1/7

4,so 49,4

to.0

I 4,441/10.

mo-I 14,0

0 0

Ze4 No

LIMITED SERVICES

TOTAL

lONSERS REPRESENT THE 51111 OF EIRCIINEIT4 SERVED

IN MONTHS 1, 2, AND 3 OF THE PATER.
167

increased greatly in the fourth quarter due to SYEP oper,:tions. With the

exception of Limited Services, participation in these units of service was

compensated.

The majority of nonwhite and Hispanic FY 1974

participants were enrolled in Limited Services

and Work Experience.

As seen in Table 11-3, nonwhite enrollment in Limited Services during the

first three quarters of FY 1979 accounted for approximately 56 percent of

the total nonwhite enrollment. Work Experience nonwhite enrollment followed

Limited Services for the first three quarters, and increased to approximately 63 percent of the nonwhite enrollment for the fourth quarter. Other

sizeable nonwhite enrollments during the first three quarters were in Skill

Training and Work Experience and Education. In the fourth quarter, with

SYEP implementation, Work Experience and Education and Work Experience and

Skill Training showed increased nonwhite enrollment.

Exhibits 11-4 through 11-7 on the following pages illustrate these patterns.

Exhibit 11-8, below, displays the percentage cif total nonwhite enrollment

by quarter during FY 1979.

EXHIBIT 11-8: FY 1979 Nonwhite Enrollment as a Percentage

of Tota verage uarterly Enrollment

1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 3rd_Qtr. 4th

With Limited Services 24 24 28 50

Without Limited Services 40 40 50

Excluding Limited Services enrollments which end the third quarter, nonwhite enrollment increased 25 percent during FY 1979, from approximately 40

to 50 percent.
r

ON

SON

EMIDIT 11.41 ESTIMATED FT 1919 FIRST QUAVER TOTAL OF WHIT !SCUMS

SERVED BY LUC GROUP AND ECONOMICALLY mows STATUS

IN UNIT OF SERVICE sacs Ms)

KEY 00111TE

iii HISPANIC

ECONOMICALLY DISADVAITAGED SI: 0 ENROLLMENTS SERVED IN SKILL TRAINING ND PP10010IENT EVERIEE1

r

4

OIT

EIPEIIINCE SIIII 11111111C

EDUCATION PIE. EMPLOYMENT EIPIRIENCI

SUPPORTIVE

SERVICES ONLY

.;::! 1011 1011 11111 011 I 011 EINIIINCI EIPIIIENCE ETPRIENCE AND I All

01 0111 AID AO PIE. SKILL I EDUCATION

11111111 EDICADON EMPLOYMENT 111111110 EIPEMEICE I I UNIT Of SERVICE

011 I 0111 I ElICITIO1 11IM11E1

III PIE. I TIAININD I AND PIE. I SERVICES EMPLOYMENT I AND I IIP1011111

EIPERIENCE 1 11111101 I EIPEIIINCI I
1111

1111

I

I ESTIIIATED

SERVED

IN

FT 1919

IV ETHSERVICE NIC UNIT OF

KE1 MN NC",.11111TE

.,,i IONIC

ECONMICAU.1 pa;

1@iiir

SECO (UMW

MP MO ECOKIIICALLY

(ILL SITE S CO

NIS/MAUS

NO mates

AM PREMOITIEKT

I

114 l L____ 1--

I

TOTAL OF IDITIILT DISANNITASED 0118)

SERVED IN SKILL WERIIIICE

ENPOWIENTS

STATUS

MINIS

7.:40 Yiteti 17.4Vi

1111

4::Ifi

0:::,

4

.---

" . tt:

1.1:!;;;

illi r

r,t,Vt%

ea.'d

:.:31:j..1 01

.4:4

.....0 0..,

*,

4;4.

01g,A

$111p

.A.,:: 0:I

1111 _ its

111

HIWon I sir I slat IHM11111 I PIE. EMERGE 1 I 11111111

I I EIPHIEICE

I I

Ilft11111E

1E11E1

1011 11011 I WM

EIMIFICE I EIPEIIENCE 1 ElpENIINGI

All GNU ' All 1 All PIE

11511111

1 mum 1 (WNW

! MOINE

UNIT If SERVICE

III j ICU IIICOM 1 11111111

IN PIE. I MINING MO PIE. 11E1111E1

EIROMEIII INN EVIIIIIE11! EIPIIIENCE I 111111101 EIMIENCE

I I

191,4
113

5011

1

1

1-- -4 r

ELNIDIT IIb

ESTIMATED 11 1919 THIRD EllARTE, TOTAL OF 1011111 EMR011111145 SERVED NY ETHNIC eV MO ET.401CALLT DISOWNED STATUS

IA UNIT OF SERVICE 011, SIT' MIRED) XIV N01141ITE

iYi 'AMC

ECNOIGILI DISADVANTAGED

jiff: le DOM SERVED IN SKILL TRAINING

AND PREIODINNT EIFERIENE

11111 011 31111

1 111111101

I PIE. SPUN 1011

EIPEISCE 11311111 I 110101111111 SCE 1 ma

I 11 (321111112 11 0111 1 111 11111

! !

1

1 11111111

100 I ion 011 I 011 I 011 MIM I UMW 111 I III I AND PIE. AND 1, All 011 SKILL 10811101 1E101011111 9811101 lulling:HI 111188 I 111110CE

112111131 I I 1 UNIT OfSERVICEI SKILL 1111CA1I01

1 1111111

I 1111118 I AND 11. I MICH

I All I 1111101

I 11111131 MIER!

I

I
2111

111

L

EXHIBIT 11.7 ESTIMATED FT 1119 MAN MUTER TOM OF 100110 EIMILMOOS SERVED BT ETMIC MOJP MD ECOONIULLY DISOWNS SIAM

IN MIT OF SERVICE (41.. SITES COMBINED)

11V CAM In

HISPANIC N ECOMPIICILLT DIUMIMED

fin: NO MOMS SERVED IN MILL MINIS

PM PREDROMENT WOKE

1

211

1:2

ION I III KU I IOU ANION PIE. I SUPPORTIVE ! 1011 1111 1111 III 1 11T DIT On

IMMURE I TURIN ' EMPLOYMENT; SEEMS 1 WOW WINCE 1 EIPEIIINCE 1 Ill 1 IND AND PIE. 11111111

I

I EIPEIIENCE ' NU ' AND SlIll IND ' All PIE. 1 SKILL 1 EDUCATION IIIPLOYMEN1 I AO

I I I I mu EDUCATION I IMMINENT I MIMIC I I EIFERIENCE I MIMI

I

! ! ! 11 MIME 1 I ' 1 UNIT OF SERVICE

OIC111011 NI PIE. EMPLOYMENT EPEIIINCE
- 172 -

Hispanic enrollment, a component of the nonwhite population as reported

in CYEP, remained fairly constant during the year. Exhibit 11-9 illustrates the Hispanic enrollment as a percentage of total average

quarterly enrollment.

EXHIBIT 11-9: FY 1979 Hispanic Enrollment as a Percentage

of Total Average Quarterly Enrollment

1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. 4th Qtr.

With Limited Services 9 9 9 9

Without Limited Services 12 11 10 11 Limited Services accounted for approximately two-thirds of all Hispanic

enrollment auring the first three quarters of FY 1979. Hispanic enrollment in Work Experience was next and represented the majority of Hispanic

enrollments during the fourth quarter. Hispanic enrollment in Work

Experience and Education and Work Experience and Skill Training increased

during the fourth quarter. Hispanic enrollment in Skill Training and OJT

remained relatively constant throughout FY 1979. These patterns are also

displayed in Exhibits 11-4 through 11-7.

Although male and female enrollment during FY 1979

was nearly equal, females appeared to be more likely

to be enrolled in training related activities, males

in Work Experience related activities.

Total FY 1979 male and female enrollment percentages by quarter regardless

of units of service were:

First quarter: males, 50%; females, 50%

Second quarter: males, 51%; females, 49%

Third quarter: males, 55%; females, 45%

Fourth quarter: males, 51%; females 49%
173

When male and female enrollment excluding Limited Services was reviewed,

the third quarter enrollment percentages fluctuated slightly; male

enrollment accounted for 52 percent, females 48 percent.

Reviewing Table 11-4 and Exhibits II-10 through 11-13, the approximately

equal proportions of total male and female enrollment was not reflected

for particular units of service. Males were primarily enrolled in Limited

Services during the first three quarter's of FY 1979. Male enrollments in

Work Experience followed, averaging 23 percent of the total male enrollment

for the same time period. Other units of service accounting for sizeable

male enrollment included: Work Experience and Education, 6 percent of

total male enrollment; Skill Training, 4 percent of total male enrollment;

OJT and Work Experience and Skill Training each averaged 3 percent of the

total male enrollment.

Females were also primarily enrolled in Limited Services during the first

three quarters of FY 1979. Female enrollment in Work Experience followed,

averaged 22 percent of total female enrollment. The next highest female

enrollment was in Skill Training, averaging over 6 percent. Female enrollment in Work Experience and Education was next, averaging slightly less

than 6 percent of total female enrollment. Female enrollment followed in

OJT averaging 3 percent and Work Experience and : ration just below 3 percent of total female enrollments.

It appears that males may have been more likely to be enrolled in work

related activity, while females were more represented in training activities.

By analyzing Exhibits II-10 through 11-13, slight tendencies were observed

in this direction. Male enrollments slightly exceeded female enrollments

in Work Experience for all four quarters. Male enrollments also exceeded
10811114

ESTIMATED fY 1919 QUARTERLY TOTAL OF MONTHLY ENROLLMENTS SERVED BY SEX IN UNIT OF SERVICE (ALL SITES COMBINED)'

FY-79

PARTICIPANTS

UNIT OF BY SEX

SERVICE

1ST QTR 2ND QTR

, 3RD QTR 4TH QTR ----,

MALE FEMALE KALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE

, I. %

I

,

I I , 1

1 I I % r : r :

1 s %

I

WORK EXPERIENCE I /, 0 t 41 lid 1247 417

I ',Poi /01

J'/ A.°

1, .1 93 f.J

.1 10 /. 9

A9410 Isl.('

.171 /. J

1,5/1 4.9

4..fil / .$

4/,42/ kis.S

4157 ti.4

. I ..3, WI, Lrts

J.194___.1.,r1

441 // 4 I ,ull ,I./

/601 .2./

/611 °'''t

ON-THE-JOB TRAINING 30 II J.4 .214 J,I SKILL TRAINING

I 3/.3 I :14 urro 4 4 J/4 0.0" 0-911 01.0 14-1/ ,12 1

/96 0,,

---r60/, J7 -1

14.4 1.9

d$7 7.4

44)1 7.9

/j4 1.7

4 0./

EDUCATION

I

.01 o.9 hi 01 /41/ a. 9 99 0.1

PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

I id 04

I of I ad

441 0,s

at 0.4

krf ,41

r

,fic 4.4

44 041

41 a.4i

__Aar

19

" acs! of

SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY 0.4 37 0.4

WORK EXPERIENCE AND

SKILL TRAINING

1r_001 I ,?.3

J7 414,

di I

I o.3

//J I 1 3

00.11 ,IJ

J711 4.41 as/ 1.7 OP d./ .1.2.? /.9 0-3/4? 7.0

i

4//l, d".4

40 J./

1

11..fd 3,0 $13 4i 44.1-7 d .6 WI idg

I

911 ijj / ~WORK EXPERIENCE AND

EDUCATION

I ,z I oj .2 I a./

r

//1 I 0./

,t4 0.1

M 01

,I 0,fi

/4 0./

79 0,4"

/4/ O./

4-04 I 4,i

I

/III 0.4

46¢ I 44

I /0 I 04

WORK EXPERIENCE AND

PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

ON-THE-JOB TRAINING AND

SKILL TRAINING

I

// i o/

I / 0./ ON-THE-JOB TRAINING AND

EDUCATION

,t4 0.3

I

As? I o. 31 I o.,? ii.I 0..1 J7 04 ,ii 0.4 jo 04 J9 o.d

. 011THE-JOB TRAINING AND

PRE - EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE 4 I 0/

I / I 41.o 4 I 0.0 Al el.o .1 0.0 / el o 3 a o 0 a

SKILL MINING AND

PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE 0 I e) a a 0 I a 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 a

SKILL TRAINING

AND EDUCATION

I tfit I 0.4 641' 6 / I o. 0 al 1 o. $1 /to 0.1 79 a 0.7 4,7 0.1

EDUCATION AND PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

I 016 10,S doT e.

I /o4 10.7

1 Afo 1 /. 0 /004

LfJ'/

Af,7A9

A/,aa

0., 1.44 0.1 .._,tr,±12.1ILLLL

7,7/3 /40.0

0 1 0

1 Z7/.1 /00.0

7,es91 "40

I 0 1 0

I 7,44-91 /pica

d(/

lify.1-3S7

/004

44 943 .t16

7/.41

/Z300 /0.4

SUBTOTAL

I d,tif I at.? ,t/.44 ..41.4

6, //1 all

/, 9¢0 /00.0

a, e,?.?1 .1.1,J

/49411 74.f

1 Af,V141 /00.0

I A4901 0)1

I I/Mil 74.7

I /11, fat /00.0

LIMITED SERVICES I. . 4,4f16/...t

I A

TOTAL 9, /04 1/00.- *NUMBERS REPRESENT THE SUM OF ENROLLMENTS SERVED

IN MONTHS 1, 2, AO 3 OF THE QUARTER,
911

0

1ii 20

w

1111 x

w

A0

z

).

X

a

ri 2111

pc

L6A 0 1111

w

; 111

ev

All101

ER11111.10

ESTIMATED FT 1971 FIRST MIER TOTN. OF MALY EINALRENS

SERVED IT 51.1 II UNIT R SERVICE (All STATES MINED)

REV RE ION

FERE III

la NO DIRLINNIS II SKILL 1111111116 RID PRE-ORDIENT cuintma

1

Eli EIP1111111

1:13

111111111121111h

tit. 'swum ion

littoral!! slam Hama

EIPEIIINCE INU 1110 11111111

--1 1

1 I olmium 11111111111 i nail 1

Well 1011 011 O11 I 011 9111 1E11111 101 1 1111111 HP111191 1, WORM HD AO I III P11 1111111 Ali M. 911111$

AND III PIE. AIL 99111 ON IEMPIOYMENl All EMPLOYMENT I 11111111 ' EMPLOYMENT 111111N I UM 1E91 (111111 ION 1 1111111NCE EIPEMENCI ORO Of SERVICE

2 O'
r6101

5101

I I

I 7-- r

11,101

11,111

E911811 I I-11_f ESTIMATED Ff 1 879 SECOND PATER TOUT OF TURRET OIREEEMENTS SERVED IT 5E0 II UNIT OF SERVICE (ALL STARS COMBINED) KIT

IRE 1111111

FEMALE E.. No ENROLLMENTS IN SKILL TRAINING IS

PREORENTIENT EXPERIENCE 4 L_ -r

1

L

400

100

":1

Ell EXPERIENCE 011 SKILL TIMING

EDUCATION

IUIIIUIILly PIE. EMPLOYMENT EXPEIIENCE

SUPPORTIVE

SERVICES ONLY W011 WORN 1 WON

EXPERIENCE EXPERIENCE I EXPERIENCE

1111 SKILL AND I All PIE.

TIMINC EDUCATION I EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE UNIT OF SERVICE

J

.... OJT OJT I 011 I Wit AND AND I AND PRE. I MIMI

gill EDUCATION (EMPLOYMENT I AND TIMM I EXPEDIENCE I EDUCATION

I 4

EDUCATION AND PRE. EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

L NITEI SERVICES j

hI
'III

SIII II-12

ESTIMATED FY IWO THIRD OJARTEN TOTAL (11' Kr! 1.1.11ENIS SURD II SEX IN UNIT OF SERVICE (ALL TA: 4

KEY IC 111111 FEKE ma: NO ENROLLMENTS IN SKILL TPAININ6 AND

PRE-D1PLOYNENT EXPERIENCE

r

IX

111

WORK EITIERIENCE 011 SI LL MARINO

EDUCATION PRE. SIIPOIIIIE

ENPLOIMII1 SERVICES

ITIMITIC!'1 ONLY

2'23

WORN IOU Ell

EIPEIRIICE WHIM UNWIRE

AID SKILL IND 1 III PIE. 1011110 EDUCATION (gum

EXPERIENCE UNIT OF SERVICE

011

IND

SKILL

111111111

011

AND

EDUCATION

011 I SKILL AND PIE- 1111111N0

EMPLOYMENT I AND EIPHIENCE I EllICA1101

(00011101 RID PRE' EMPLOYMENT EIPEIIENCE

L 111E1 SERVICES

21.
ESTIMATED QUARTERLY TOTAL MONTHLY ENROLLMENTS SERVED Alb lb GO 4MV UM 4MV UM UM OD 4MV UM Oa WO 4MV 4MV AmWO UMUM
1 I

I CHM 11-13

EITIKITED 11 IV KUM PAN TOTAL Of HMV RUM

SENS IT SEX IN MIT 0 SERVICE (All STATES MINED) KEY Pm 1111111 FOYLE IN

gal MO EINLINENTS IN SKILL TRAINING W

10-9ROENT EXPERIENCE

4-

r

1

1

11 I- 4 -4

1 I I

I

1 I

I I L.....___LJ I

1 1

1 1 I

I

1

1

I

1 I I

I I

1

I

1 1 1

1

1

1

I i

I I 1

I --------r---1

1

1

I I

I

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1 1

1

1

I 4 -L______L______

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1 t--4 4---1

1

1

1 1

1

1 1F-----j-1 1

1

1

1 1 1

1

1 1

1

I

1 4_,...____

IL_ 1

1

1

I

1 1 1

1

1

1

1 1

1

0

ill

111

11111 HI 111M

1

11

OOCATIIN P.

I /101H1101

IIPIIIINCI

lift

II/111110E

ANO HILL

WINN

Will WORN 1 011 I 011 1 III 11111

IIIIIINCI EIIEIIENCE 1 AND I INC 1 AND III. 11111111

INC INI HI. 1 HILL I ICICATIOM 111111011111 INC

DIMON IMPLEMENT I IHININ0 1 I MIMIC( OICI1101

0111IIII 1

I

1 I UNIT OF SERVICE

212 ';
179

female enrollments in Work Experience and Education for the second and

third quarters before equalizing during the summer months. Work Experience

and Skill Training and OJT experienced more male than female enrollments

for all four quarters. Females, on the other hand, were better represented

in Skill Training and, on a smaller scale, in Education and Pre-Employment

Experience and in Pre-Employment Experience. Two notable exceptions to

this trend were Education, which had more male enrollments, and OJT and

Education, which had more female enrollments.

Younger CETA participants were more often enrolled in

Work Experience activities while older participants

tended to be enrolled in training activities.

Limited Services dominated all enrollments in the

first three quarters of FY 1979 for all age categories

except 20-21 year-olds .

Table 11-5 displays the estimated FY 1979 quarterly total of monthly

enrollments served by age in each unit of service. Exhibits 11-14 through

11-17 illustrate the monthly enrollments by age in each unit of service

more graphically.

Enrollments by age category, as a percentage of FY 1979 enrollments, are

shown in Exhibit 11-18 below. The effect of Limited Services is apparent

particularly for 14-15 year-olds during the first three quarters.

EXHIBIT 11-18: FY 1979 Age Categories as a Percentage of

Total Average Quarterly FY 1979 Enrollments

Age

With Limited Services Without Limited Services

1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. 4th Qtr. 1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. 4th Qtr.

14-15 27 32 34 25 9 7 15 25

16-17 33 31 31 32 35 35 35 32

18-19 33 32 31 30 35 37 35 30

20-21 7 5 4 13 21 21 15 13

2
ESTIMATED FY 1911 IMIMITERLY TOTAL OF IllboilLY ENROLLMENTS SERVED BY ACE IN UNIT OF SERVICE (ALL SITES C016,0ED)*

FY '79 PARTICIPANTS

8Y AGE

UNIT of SERVICE

1:T QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 410 QTR

14.15 16 -11 18-19 20-21 14-15 15.17 18-19 20-21 14.16 16.17 18-19 20-21 14 -IS 16-17 18-19 20-21

1

1 1 1 I I % l i % 1 1 % / 1 1 1 0 i i i 1 1 6 % 1 1 % 1;1 gil 2...02!2211.21

1

I #.1* .0

I

I ALE

S

WORK EXPERIENCE

to

Ji 04

ts_a_,,fill.....

0

1

1 oit12121ifil

1

1 .411

I

I

1

I gitef21

1

I

11 istby

I

I J.

1

I

I iti

1I 414 Ile

.

I 0 I a

tI.-fa .

I

I A Il

it, J.1

,

1

I ii 4,1

1

I jaiLl.,

I I I I

1

I LA_ 7.

1

I 14_ *7

I

I 424....a

Lig.LatjaLk

i,1 1.0

1

11 *$11 #7*

I1

I,1

,,diiivtsjida_Aujipli_14,L..

1

I IAA L.

I

I 2.11__ki

Ltl III

to4 fs

1

II 1, or.,

ON-THE-JOB TRAINING

SKILL TRAINING 1______

EDUCATION

I

I y'A At,

I _M_A

I

I A 1.

III

II 1,

to

I

I . .. um

I

I 4..1 ,c,

I

I

I

I .1,.m

1

1

I

I 2 4 I 2

I

.12i .1.0

_Ail

,,7

ai

_Ri "

A 2

_rgi_o_At

I

I t_i_21

I

I _am _IL

1

1 AR LA

I _Lt 4_1i

1 411 0J

I

I 24.1!

it bb

ci

J.) ..1

_taii__Lip_ifi

14.11

g c(

ki

r is

II cf

PRE-WILOYNENT EXPERIENCE

,21

41_1

_,..rtm,

1

1 _;_fl_ al

I

I Li. 04

1

I .14;.

1

I Ail 0./

1 .4 .

Al I 4

I ;41 co.;

JI

i

0

I

0

4

0'.

.4

I 1

I 4.1

1

1 DI

I

I

.

1

1 i44

I 1 47

1 /0/ 4

1

411 *

1 Ail as

11111

IIIII

,_.2.4,...,4

1I I ti #1.._4_1,1_4

I

I

1, ir.

.il 14

SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY

I

I i4e_t_r4

I

1 kr/i )4

I

I ai J.*

WORK EXPERIENCE AND

SKILL 'RAINING

...-,,F,44

of eJ _614 ja,

mil Is

1.1_14

44.1f ti

s r

--t. i 01

ii 0.4

Airy!

d 1 ki

1 4 /4

1 ilf-di

1 Ail ii.

YORK EXPERIENCE AND

EDUCATION 04

4 4

I A If

I

/11 4 a

I .444i 3:40 944 0

I foil it

.;

.....21_,_14 .fa

Olt 54,

I 1144

I

loi f.1

_TA I

0. 0

0111.1 4ha

I 14 4.4,Aul r

f

I --2r2, I 1

//1 04

WORK EXPERIENCE AND PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

I al . 4 0 1

v 3 54 Ili Ns

I !I 4

I 401 14, ON-THE -J01 TRAINING AND SKILL TRAINING

o 61

I

1 0.1

I /0 I J

I 44_1rot_iry.,

I O.

I 1 1 I

I Ili_a.

y

,LI _ILI.

it/ or '

I _1_4 el

I

.1

I _Lira.

I

I

I

.4,1j..111,

I

I

ON-THE-JOB TRAINING AM

EDUCATION I 44

I il 1, el .4 jit

+t

1 .1 ..,_11_,.

011-111E-JOB TRAINING AND PREDC.000T EXPERIENCE , M01 0

! oi 4) 1---

1 rI

1 pi 1 -1

I olg.

I

I .ig

I

I _211.1 ,

I

I 4 thiAllitilliiiidilllEd

I

1 4 fiii /b.

I 4041 MAO

1 al

1 ._;2j a

I Jii ka

I

I Al OJ

I

I

I

1 wit.ite,Alit

I Otboo.o

4 to

0

I da,14,0

I o IIII

I al

I o

I

I if 4.ir .

I _21 J'

_d___,

J 1

27_4111LJ.,,LIA,1

I . I I 4..,1_,....ti_.1,

I

1

1

I _441,

1I Jr'

I

# ttli Mt

SKILL TRAINING AND PREINPLONTINT EXPERIENCE

SKILL TRAINING AND

EDUCATION ail

iii m

I

I 1A4..12

I

I 441.2.4

0 0.1404.1,A_Itt,

ELVEN I(RI APO PRE-ENPLOMENT EXPERIENCE

I ,I 11.. ,

I

I ,.zit iif

I1 !,094 0.A

I

f'. ,,4...

I

I III_

I

I

I

1

I 4/141H4

I t.4 it

Mil "

m 74

I

I A it

I1 Ji14.49.1..itzt

I12.,.t_qt.../A

I.

44),,.

..A.I.4

laaidam

agirtad

IA ,s4

tfoil

I ROA,.

As

Leapt!

I 04111014

I

I 1141.ti

1

I,Ahl jet

I Idipililtr,I

...2.4_2_,

I Mil ill

I 0011.4

I lad INA

_Lu_u_l_

tta'"'

a

4N7I'N1

a a

swim..

I tAili,,,,,00llmmo

, - . ....- SUBTOTAL

1 ,I a

I

LIMITED SERVICES

TOTAL

I pa,

I (Fp+. Polio.. tin! ow

NUMSERS A PRESENT THE SUN OP ENROLLMENTS SERVED

IN MONTHS I, 1, ANO 3 OF THE QUARTER
rw-

'III ---____I_____I--

p

I

I i

I

I I 1

I moll 11.14' ESTIMATED FT 1079 FIRST QUARTS TOTk OF MU MOWS Sill

1---SERVED KY AGE IN UNIT OF SERVICE INI SITES COINER) UT

1101 14.15 TEARS EU WI 17 !EARS EU

V, 16.19 TEARS OLD

i 101

111 20-21 WS OLD

,,

, la: to EIROWIENTS NC PPI.EROYNESI SERVED IN SIIII, TNAINIII UPERIEla

1

1 nil

6,,

1

t

,,,,

,,

,,

1111

,,6,

"./

, , ,,

,,,,,,r,

311 --4-4- L

,,

,,

,,,,//

111-

III

H 1

H

. 4 H

H

H

H

IL, ll,

III

//

//

///

16

211

....... r,7? ////

,, ,,

,,

1 //

i o ,,

, ///

1 //,, ,,

# 10,

..1.w...1...=.11 ,,,

,#

, ,,, , ,,, ,, /

i' Z WI #, , 11/1 # 4, ,4 $

. i

et ,,,,

://, ,,i ,,

nq Will I IT 1110 1111n110 PH' 110011111 10111 1 10011 1011 /11 011 III 11111 11101111 10111110 I 1 11111110 111110111111 IIIVIC11 10111110 1 111111101 UPON( 1 III All III POI' 11 111111 III 111' I I 11011101 OKI 01 111111 1111 III III' I 11111 10011111 INURE 00 01,1011111

I Mom I NMI Illinkl 1 1111110 110111111 11101111 101111111

111111 1111101 WINN

UNIT U SERVICE

21
4111

1111 HI

411

211

1111111 11.15 ESTRUM FY 1911 VOX COMB OF SODOM FY 1919 DX WATER 101/1. OF MR! WAITS WM 11 ME IN 011110f SERVICE SITES COMIC)

KEYHID IIII HMS MN 19.11 FUX

11.19 YIMS OLO

1041 HMS

a: NO HIMUMENIS BYO IN SKILL TIAMINO X MI-BROXIT MIME

1112

/I

/1H#/I

II/ YS

'II /I/

II/ /II

II/

/II

/1 /I/

J

Oil /I/

100

'H

iii

iii

iii

//

/I /1

I/

iii

iii

Ell 1 011 1 11111 110111111 11111111 111111111 101011111 11011 1 111111 1 1111 011 I 011 I 111 I 111111

I 11101101 11111111 111001 WINN 1 WM 111PE1IIUE AU I 10 I 10 P11. 1 10111110 I HI PH' 11111111 101 III 11111 , 01 , PIE. Mil IIIICthil IIIIPlinnt

' 2011111111 111111M1 HAIN I I 10011111 1111E11101 1 101111111 mum II II I UNIT OF SUM
r

010-

J

I I

1

1

I I 1 1

I I I

1 plait II-16 F,_..__ _r

ESTRITED FV 1915 THIRD COMM TO% OF 11011111LY ENKLUIENTS HIVED IT AGE IN UNIT OF SERVICE (OLL SITES DAMNED)

10

11111 11-IS VEERS OLD

01:1 16.11 YEN MO

'II, 18-11 YEW ID

2021 TUX CtO

MI NO INROLU1ENTS SERVED 11 SKILL TRAININi RAO PAIILOINENT EXPERIEICE

41,1

i;

10,

ii

1 f

SSIf

11

11

11

iii

ii

ii

r"./

40

10

tn.

ih

r

11,4, ,10

SS

SS

11

IOU I 011 I 111111

1 101101101 I 1111. unima I 1 11111110 I 110010

1

I

I I I 1 0111101

1 I

! !

2 I

SS

11

11

/12

11

ii

SS

)11

If

1

11011 011 j 011

111111101 10 I IMP JO 111 11111 111UC11101

01017111111 11114110 1 1111111111 UNIT Of MINE011 1 11111 1110041104 10 FM 1 0111110 1 1110 /II.

1E111111 I III I 01110111111 11/1111111 1 100041101 1 1011111161

1

SS

SS

11111

11111111

21.1.
6000

5001

1 1--

111

111

sI 1 I II

1 l' r EXHIBIT II 17 1 ESTIMIBY ED FYPil 1179M

FCIRTOf (PL

IF ClliNTEI TOM

SITOfE19:WILY alle )

EMCWIENTS

SERVED III IT SERVICE I. S C

KEY

11111 14.15 !EARS MD

1117 YEAS as

111-19 !EMS OLD O0.11 NEARS aO

gi; NO (NAVIES SERVED IN SEW. TRAINING

PM PILEMOMEMT EXPERIENCE

Ie

'IF

le

l

'F

lo

'I

I'

0iii

:%%11 SKILL 11111110N

IIOININI

111 11/P011111 11/1011111

IIMIEN1E

LOIN

11111111 I 1111111111 1111 MI HILL

MINIM

ION 11011 11/1110111 11MI11ENCE 011 110

1111 ANN /II. 11111 MIAMI no10111011 11111011

1111111111 UNIT Of SERVICE

r-

&AI

011 OH SKILL 1111111011 I 11111111 111 1111 PIE. 11111111 III III. I 11111111 101111101 101011111 1111 11/111M1

11111011 10111111011 111111110E 2"'
- 185 -

Excluding Limited Services, 14-15 year-olds were most often enrolled in

Wort Experience activities. During the first three quarters, most 14-15

year-olds were in Work Experience. In the second quarter, 14-15 year-olds

were enrolled in Work Experience, Work Experience and Skill Training, and

Work Experience and Education Almost exclusively. In the third quarter,

14-15 year-old enrollments began to climb in many units due to the initiation of summer programs and continued to increase during the fourth quarter.

However, most 14-15 year-olds remained primarily in Work Experience activities.

The 20-21 year-old participants were mostly enrolled in Skill Training and

OJT units of service. This age group was most likely to be in Skill Training

which accounted for approximately 32 percent of the 20-21 year-old enrollment during the year. Enrollments in OJT followed with 20 percent of the

enrollment of this age group. 20-21 year old enrollment in Work Experience

approximately 17 percent of total enrollment in this age group; the proportion of 0-21 year-old: in Work Experience to other age groups was low.

The pattern varied somewhat during the summer months when a sizeable number

of 20-21 year-olds were enrolled in Work Experience and Education and Work

Experience and Skill Training.

The 16-17 and 18-19 year-olds seemed to be enrolled in sizeable numbers in

almost all units of service provided. The largest enrollments for both of

these age groups were in Limited Services and Work Experience. 16-17 yearold enrollment seemed to be proportionately largest in Work Experience.

Work Experience and Education, Education and Education and Pre-Employment

Experience units of service. 18-19 year-old enrollment was larger in OJT,

Skill Training, OJT and Education, and Work Experience and Skill Training

for the first three quarters of FY 1979.
TABLE 114 ESTIMATED FY 1919 QUM TOTAL OF MOIR! ENROLLMENTS SERVED BY SCHOOL STATUS IN UNIT OF SERVICE (All SITES COMBINED)

FY 79 PARTICIPANTS

BY SCHOOL OMIT STATUS OF SERVICE

1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR ITH QTR

IN DOD. OUT SCHOOL IN SCHOOL OUT SCHOOL IN SCHOOL -,.....

1 1 1

OUT SCHOOL

1 $

IN SCHOOL

I I X

OUT SCHOOL

1 1 1

1 !II I ill

1 il$

WORK EXPERIENCE I 4 ifil ,4,,A,

71 0.0

1 r.ri 1 hr.c

1 11.17 i 17 1.

1

I ../..oL rii

31, 0.0

,

I 7c71 /7. 4

4/11.. 1 11.7

, I 1.,0:01 /Id

/ 0.0

,. Iii 4 41.1.4 ell /..1

I ,77 I 47.I

I Jai 0.4

I All 0.7

Mi .1,4

4047 a 7.4

4,4 ,A.g

4 144 41/.1

/70 J.J

aptia TRAINING

SKILL TRAINING I Al o.A

I 1.4 .14*.f

I

I 74 It 4.1

4 o

I 9 /II 41.,.

Joel d-.1

104 .. 110 Lel

ftir /9.f

AAA 0,4 MOTION

o

I

I ',pi 9.f POIEMPLODIEKT EXPERIENCE 11 co 741 .1.1

II a I 44.1 179 .0,1 /17 0.,) /00 J.0

. tad 4, A.1.1 t 4,4. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY

t

el I ,/

t

It I .14 '-f-----

I ,7 I 0,, Ira 4,4 .0 I 0.0 44 1,4

I I I .0 A /

i

*4

9/ I 0.i

/J9 ir

0.'0 ..1.,r

797 1/.4

771 04

/AI 0.9

441 ,¢.,l

NI 17.7

1 JAI' 1,

1 14/9JI 44

6oi 4.1

-

01/ 4.4

OK EXPERIENCE AND

SKILL TRAINING 77 I i,f

12 1, *4

INV,itpl,

ilf I, /1.7

IIX UPDIKE MD

EOIXATI011

IX EIPERIEICE AND

PRE-DRODIENT UPSIDE!

I

.17 I 1,4

I

old! 0.7 .11 L 0,1 o A Al 0,0

01. a .4 Na 0.9

° 0

AI I.7

.14 1,11

I

'MI 1.9 ---1

0 I 0

hi I b 4

441 0.4

0111E4 MINIS X

NE-DROVISIT EXPERIENCE o f

I

if I cs

al* MINING AM

SKILL MINX 1 1

1 %I I ,,i 0 0

II

71 1,7

I i I .1

10 I 0.0

I 0 1

4/ /. 0

1

11 1./

I I 0,1

0 I .

it I I./

0 I 0.1

II MINING AND

MAN

i , I

1 / I o..t

SKILL TPAINIII AS

IRE-EN LOVIMIT EXPERIENCE

I o

1

I ° II o I oI 0 I oI 0 I I

, 0 1 0 I A r

7 a./

0 1 0

. 0.0 AP (1. a /at 4.1

SKILL TPAINING

AND EDUCATICM

I 1 I ,/

1 fil ./.6 f e.

-

//, .1.c &CATION AND

PPI-DRODIENT EXPERIENCE

...,.,.. 0 I .? 0

I g de? I . 0 0 0 did 0.7 0 I 1(1 I ,. 4 .0 .0

SUITDIM. 4* 41.,

I J. I /of. 4/4.1 4.7 4.?1, 1 / C904 /4.4 4x71 hi.. tmlf /./ triliq /*Ls

LIMITED SERVICES /J, ,111 fr. / 0 1 Ai, 44 17.4 ° . .1/,114 1404 a d

i 0 0 j

TOTAL /4 Ail #44.. 1 ix.. 110,o A1,411.01 01..0 449 i°a'.

I 1144." I 99.9

46 7 ft h" f# fit i °a,' I *riJ" i "Li

INNERS REPRESENT THE SIM OF ENROLLMENTS SERVED

IN OBS I, 3, AND 3 OF THE VEER
SIN

N111111 11-19 1STIMTED FY 1911 FINST QUNITEI TOM V IOW EINWIOITS

SIM V WM SIAM IN MIT V KWIC! 111J. SITES =lel

al la ol'AUUTS RIO IN SNILL 111111111

111R011101 8111118a

I I

INN 1111 SNlll

"INN

IIN111111

INNS

110

11111111111 MI I NI

UNION 1 MINI

; IN NI. 11110111 '.11P01111

UNIT Of SERVICE

los NMI 111 111 Ili 111 III 1111 SI 1 II PN11101 WW1

11111111 ENPEIIINCE

1101111

SNlll

MINN

111 NOM
IM

I

,t I alwl

I

PTIIIITO

EV3

MINT 11.20

IT 111 SINT EP3 MX I VORA Et=

P saa ITN IN MIT P ova IE slip cosioL

m

wino IN SOU

PR P SOK

$111

1111 1 ti o OEM

NT MOWN

ME IN PILL WIN

WOW

1111

1 A

1111nI _

\

'

I I

i

I

I

I

I 1111 _I

I

I NI

III 1

I

I

I

I

I 111 NMI

I I

j

I 111 II. 1

t Iii I

I I

II I'

11111 I III I SITU I 01111111 I Ms 1811111111 MIMI IIMIN 1 11111111011 81111111

1 ' 11/81011 1 1111

I I

. 1 MI I VIII 1 1111 I 111 I 111 1 Ili I $1111 MUM I 1 IN

=IN 1111111111 1111111111 III I IN 1 111 NE nom IN Pa. I imlu

IN 111111 I M I III 111 I SlIll 1 111111111 1111111IIIN I IN 1

INPATIENT I 11111111 OICIIM I EIP1111EN11 1111110 I IIIMINI I MCOM 1111111ENIE I 11181111 UNIT OF NOVICE J
IIN

IM

law 11.21

ESTXTED

SS 1111 TOO OATH TOM V NEILS 11111WIM

SRO IT lat STANS II UNIT V aria Oa son aam

NU NN DA

NOV OF $001

st NO EMUS SINNED IN Via NM

211.0110101I NUM

IN

IN

ill

1111111111

J

I

MINCE

III Nal 11111111 MOM SNPPIITIYE

III!

EINEM

III IOU

THIN

`21.4

BMOC!

MUM

MIMI j III

III Pli I SKIN

IMMUli TIMM

MEM I

UNIT OF MU

Ili Ili

III I All PIE.

1NCATIN

MINIM

Nal 11111111

IN

MON I III III

IN PIE I MINI

UMITIOR

MUM
nee 1 1 1 1 I I I . _i -- I- 1 11 I 1 mm1 11.221 iiii II 1 I I I I ESTIPARD R MI RION pram TO% OF NOV EINIUMITS SEM IY SOK STATUS IN MIT f SENILE (Ml SITU DX1111) KEY I I II 1111110111 IN SOU =MUM --r......_.- I II ff: 0 EIPAUCKIS MED IN SKILL TIAINIS N PIEElft0MT EIR0IENK1 I - -- iiil I I -i- 3" 2111 '1(1 I I'II I 11N .4` ti 1 II I 1 111 it T IN111 

I1I I' 
191

Out-of-school enrollments were largest in Skill Training, averaging 22

percent of total out-of-school enrollments. Enrollment in Work Experience

followed, primarily due to the large increase in enrollments during the

third and fourth quarters. OJT served a sizeable percentage of out-ofschool youth (14 percent of total out-of-school enrollments) and was

almost exclusively an out-of-school activity. Work Experience and Skill

Training served 11 percent of the out-of-school participants. An interesting exception to this trend was Work Experience and Educatior which

served a large number of out-of-school youth in all four quarters.

The overall enrollment patterns for school status and age are similar. Inschool youth were more likely to be found in Work Experience activities;

out-of-school youth were more often in Skill Training and OJT related

activities. Younger age groups were enrolled in Work Experience activities

and older youth in training. In the summer, however, these distinctions

were somewhat blurred.

Effective activities cannot easily be identified

from an analysis of completion and noncompletion

rates.

The completion trends, as indicated from Table 11-7, show that most completions occurred in Limited Services, all during June. Exhibit 11-24

graphically displays estimated monthly completions by unit of service.

Completions in Work Experience were next highest, and showed a less erratic

pattern than Limited Services. Work Experience and Education recorded a

large number of completions as did Work Experience and Pre-Employment

Experience. As can be seen in Table 11-7, completions in almost all

activities increased in the fourth quarter. The fourth quarter completion

increase was due to the summer programs.
COMP CON NON COMP NON COQ MON COMP MON Cat NON CGIP elCat NM ION COMP I IIIMMEMODODOIXIIINDOMMINDMIODMINNIXIDIMMIN

CON

1

1_,

MOM NON no

'i 1 e , I Y ,$ I 0 i I i I i r 0 ;. i .II A k 11 i

I,

i 1 i 1, I L I , r

i 1 r

, , ,

, r

1 , . 1 ; i , I I i

I I

I ilin I , , r , I, , r

,

! I

, i , I , 1 I ,, , , , I , ,,

, I I , , , , /:J

I; f / 1 1 1 I !

I I 1 11 11 '4 1 1 I '1 1 1111 ,1 All I 11 ti 1, I I '11 11

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 11 1,1111

10 se oeltiof III 1 ! 01101 1 r0111111)11/11011/1/11/1111 / 1/0111/1 1 1/11,

0 11 1 / I, Si 11 11

'Ir11'

e A, ,

le '1111;1

1 / / I 1 I I / / l /

Ill ' /f, A, L r t, .JA , ILI . I,
11,000

9001

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

900

800

700

600

500

KEY WORK EXPERIENCE

OJT

SKILL TRAINING

EDUCATION PRE-EMPLOYMENT

EXPERIENCE

SUPPORTIVE

SERVICES ONLY WORK EXPERIENCE AND

SKILL TRAINING

YORK EXPERIENCE AND

EDUCATION WORK EXPERIENCE AND

PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE ^raw. OJT TRAINING AND

SKILL TRAINING

ESTIMATED FY 1979 MONTHLY COMPLETIONS BY UNIT OF SERVICE (ALL SITES COMBINED)

. OJT TRAINING

AND EDUCATION 44WMMO OJT RAINING Aka PRE-.

EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE'

EXHIBIT 11-241-

v1/4

I

II

issowsw SKILL TRAINING AND

PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

u mwmm SKILL TRAINING 400ie AND EDUCATION lessan EDUCATION AND PREEMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE 300-

200-

100

LIMITED SERVICES

II

I

I

NOTE: NO AVERAGE MONTHLY ENROLLMENTS IN

SKILL TRAINING AND

PRE-EMPLOYMENT

EXPERIENCE

/1/4

50

40

30

20

10

al NI I Arm.

11 Fra 111171 I W1

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAN API MAT 1111 JOL ADC SEP
- 194 -

The noncompletion trends, as displayed in Exhibit 11-25, showed a pattern

similar to the completion trends. .Noncompletions, as explained in the

first quarterly report, were identified as those participants recorded

in the FY 1979 CETA nonpositive termination categories. Work Experience

accounted for the most noncompletions, with a large number of noncompletions also recorded in Work Experience and Pre-Employment Experience

and Work Experience and Skill Training ar.1 Skill Training units of service.

Noncompletions increased greatly from June through September. As with

completions, this is primarily due to the summer programs.

In analyzing completion and noncompletion rates for 1979, it is very difficult to identify the "most effective" activities in achieving positive

outcomes. One reason is that the summer program completions tended to

distort the trends, due to the large influx of summer participants. Another

reason is that the term "completions" generally included all positive terminations and transfers. In the absence of specific criteria to measure

success, there was no way to determine if a transfer (i.e., completion)

resulted from successful or unsuccessful participation. CYEP performance

measures will correct this for FY 1980, but the limitation exists for FY

1979 data. For analysis, it is also necessary to consider the purpose

of the activity or service and what a completion in that activity may

denote; i.e., whether or not the participant achieved the stated competency

standard(s) as documented in his/her EPR.

Displayed in Table 11-8 below are the annual completion rates for all

FY 1979 units of service.
10,000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4100

3000

2000

1001 C

900

811

700

101

400

300

200

100

SO

KEY

WORK EXPERIENCE'

t SKILL TRAINING EDUCATION,

PRE-EMPLOYMENT

EXPERIENCE SUPPOWyks /

swum

ESTIMATED FY 1979 MONTHLY NONCOMPLETIONS BY UNIT OF SERVICE (ALL SITES COMBINED)-

EXHIBIT 11-25

WORK EXPERIENCE AND

SKILL TRAINING

WORK EXPERIENCE AND

EDUCATION WORK EXPERIENCE AND

PRE EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

eirmaar OJT TRAINING AND SKILL TRAINING

OJT TRAINING

AND EDUCATION

084,444.. OJT TRAINING AND PRE- EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE motons SKILL TRAINING AND

PRE - EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE mime SKILL TRAINING

AN" EDUCATION seem EDUCATION AND PREEMPLOYMENT EIRERIENCC

LIMITED SERVICESLi

I I NOTE: NO AVERAGE MONTHLY

ENROLLMENTS IN

SKILL TRAINING AND

PRE - EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

orMEI,

20

10

-

-

30 LI

:22di

P74:911111111111111H;

S:c.... 4111111

411po

AlatLas__

/

°1167

40

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEI MAI API AY

, 1 N 1 l A O SEP
196

Table 11-8

FY 1979 Annual Completion Rates and

Noncompletion Rates by Unit of Service

Completion Rate Noncompletion Rate

Work Experience 86% 14%

OJT 69 31

Skill Training 68 32

Education 84 16

Pre-Employment Experience 78 22

Supportive Services 60 40

Work Experience-Skill Training 63 37

Work Experience-Education 87 13

Work Experience-Pre-Employment

Experience 84 16

OJT-Skill Training 62 38

OJT-Education 61 39

OJT-Pre-Employment Experience 71 29

Skill Training-Education 82 18

Education-Pre-Employment Experience 91 9

Limited Services 99.9 .01

Expenditures for youth services increased during

FY 1979 with the highest expenditures occurring

in the fourth quarter; Work Experience related

activities accounted for most of the annual

FY 1979 expenditures.

As mentioned in Chapter I, the expenditures data resulted from a significant

amount of estimation. No Prime Sponsors utilized individual participant

tracking for expenditures. This resulted in a high degree of estimation

for Title IIB expenditures which were prorated from Title and activity

total expenditures.

As Table 11-9, Estimated FY 1979 Monthly Expenditures by Unit of Service,

displays, most of the FY 1979 expenditures occurred in the fourth quarter.

Total expenditures by quarter were:

First quarter: 13.1%

Second quarter: 17.1%

Third quarter: 23.5%

Fourth quarter: 46.3%

2 ')
VILE 11.9 MONTHLY EXPENDITURES BY UNIT OF SERVICE (ALL SITES COMBINED)

WIRY

EXPENDITURE UNIT OF SERVICE

OCT 0 DEC IEMENIEMENI MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT

PROS SUPP

FART SOP

PROG

SUPP PART SUPP

PROG

SUPP PART SUN

PROG PART SUPP SUPP

PROG

SUPP

PART SUPP

PROD

SUPP

PROG

SUPP PART SUPP

PROG

SUPP PART SUPP

PROG

SUPP PART SUPP

FROG

SUP? PART SUPP PUG

SOP

PART SUPP NOG

SUPP PART SUPP

$ % v

't

DOMERIEMMIDMINEHILMIM

DEEPLY *,*..i p.

;1LIGHEIRMEIREILIFIREiligil

Malign El

sailimitiosart,0111

IFIRR MIKIMIXICKIEEKKINIKEINI

gm

"

.... artumEi

num

EILI

,

i

ri

1

8 2

R...

10* EXPERIENCE

6tZI g Z4 *ENNUI) TRAINING

SKILL TRAINING

to lig3: li

EDUCATION

PKORDEMER EXPERIENCE OHO

a

ii

*U1 s-Atj

Vi

I ,,t

° l

1 Itfig

nula

ii

141111111,

maims

Boggs

goatuti zial

REIREIN

iiii"ki

,sliacia,,

.

pp

a

.

.,

I

. lisiiir

ggagEnip.,

,

1

ti 14

.

gag

,

hi

w

,

0

II

,

N 4

vl

kl

SUPINE SERVICES ONLY

1111 EXPERIENCE W

SKILL !PAINING at UPRIENCE MO MOTION

KIX EXPERIENCE NIP PREDROTHENT EXPERIENCE ggivit,

Es

tik,1

vi .:1 4

011THE01 TRAINING AND

ROLL ERAINING

0111iJ08 TRAINING AND

EITUCA1101 CONEJOR MINI% AND

*ORM/ EXPERIEKE

.

.

s

`41 h1 4 ° L.

41 44

1

d

4

1

1

1 1 ^ p

SIM TRAINING AND I RIEDOLOEHENT EXPERIENCE KILL TRAINING

OM EDUCATION d

1

y _Zill..)

i

1 .I_

t

IP

04

. 4

1 .I.. 0)

'I

41

41.4i

.k. .-1

Z

0

'4

I 0

.N.-

$

1*IF

-I.

1L.

"t

itT _I1

1_

`4,1 23

1

11

,

ciI

1

EN CA11011 AND

FIEDROENEN1 EXPERIENCE

SURYWL

LIMED SERVICES

TOIAL a:4.. ,

,

LJ 23G
- 198 -

Summer programs accounted for the major increase in expenditures during

the fourth quarter. Expenditures increased from quarter to quarter

throughout the year. Excluding Limited Services, this trend was similar

to that for quarterly enrollments and may have indicated that many youth

programs were not fully implemented until the second or third quarters.

Limited Services, which greatly affected enrollment did not have a similar

influence on expenditures due to low program costs.

As seen on Exhibit 11-26, July experienced the largest expenditure level

of any month, accounting for 21 percent of the annual total. October

had the lowest monthly expenditures (approximately 4 percent). This

pattern generally conformed to the average enrollment pattern with low

October enrollment and peak enrollment in May and June. The lag of one

month between enrollment peak (June) and expenditure peak (July) was

not unusual, and may have been caused by participant tracking and accounting

procedures utilized by sites.

Expenditures were largest for Work Experience which accounted for about

49 percent of total expenditures. Work Experience and Education followed.

representing about 16 percekt of total expenditures. Expenditures for

Skill Training represented 9 percent of the total; for OJT, 7 percent of the

total; and for Work Experience and Skill Training, 5 percent of the total.

Limited Services represented about 3 percent of total FY 1979 expenditures.

The emphasis on Work Experience activities reflected in total expenditures

was also reflected in cost groupings. Participant support (wages, fringe

benefits, allowances) accounted for approximately 72 percent of total

expenditures. Program support (training, service, worksite supervision)

accounted for approximately 28 percent. Cost groupings by activities
1,5

1,2

1,1

2

1

ESTIMATED Fr 11119 minty EXPENDITURES BY UNIT OF SERVICE (ILL SITES casotop

KEY ISM

SOM--/

WORK EXPERIENCE

OJT

SKILL TRAINING EDUCATION PRE-MOYMENT

EXPERIENCE

SUPPORTIVE

. WORM( EXPERIENCE ARO

SKILL TRAINING

I i NOOK EXPERIENCE AND

EDUCATION WORK EXPERIENCE MO

PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE orr TRAINING AND

SKILL TRAINING

OJT TRAINING

MID EDUCATION

TRAINING AND PREEMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

1 SKILL TRAINING ANO EDUCATION EA CATION AlegiscE

zAmtur II-26 wiry

...... ..,_

...... 101001 51411--

HMO

111,111

IOW

....1

....... ease

...OJT

1 A

11,111

KM

11,111,--

AIIIIIAMIIIIIINVIiii LIMITED SERVICES

NOTE: 103 AVULLGE NONTMLY UMOLLMENTS IN iiii4ATAII

EXPERIENCE

SKILL TRAINING AND PRI-OPLOYMENT wi olio

NMI FA MEE

woo

5....l

41,111

1111"4"111P .. ,, nimer 1111 E IlEEI p

m

FA worm

XIII IF/ F li/A61.111

21,111

1.....

911 p. N011

.11_,p...i.w .e :foN. .... . ...... -----.........,..i.4.31 sr,4,

I.....

...............11

I

Ai

-:egmrmnimm

=AI.- -----::::- 0:=2,4,0

ir........

11111111111

OCT NOV ICC 1 N III III API NAY JON MIL A 0 I F
200

generally followed expected patterns. OJT was somewhat of an exception;

it had a relatively equal match of program support and participant support

until March 1979. One site administered an OJT public sector program which

paid wages. This program was dropped after the second quarter and most

of the remaining funds were in program support.

Table II-10 displays average unit cost figures for the four quarters.

Reviewing the table, unit costs varied greatly from quarter to quarter.

Most unit costs increased during the fourth quarter -- some dramatically.

This increase was probably due to the trend observed earlier, where many

programs geared down during September. The formula for calculating

quarterly unit costs utilized end-of-quarter enrollments. Because summer

programs began and ended within the fourth quarter, the high expenditure

and low enrollment figures used distorted the fourth quarter unit costs.

In order to decrease the fourth quarter variance, annual average unit

costs were also computed. The annual average unit cost for each unit of

service is displayed in Table II-10, below.

Table II-11

FY 1979 Annual Average Unit Cost

Unit of Service Annual Average Unit Cost

Won: Experience $ 657

OJT 1,116

Skill Training 1,336

Education 1,054

Pre-Employment Experience 223

Supportive Services 1,043

Work Experience-Skill Training 876

Work Experience-Education 1,426

Work Experience-Pre-Employment Experience 510

OJT-Skill Training 3,809

OJT-Education 882

OJT-Pre-Employment Experience 4,316

Skill Training-Education 474

Education-Pre-Employment Experience 980

Limited Services 18
TABLE 11-10

ESTIMATED FY 1919 AVERAGE QUARTERLY UNIT COST BY UNIT OF SERVICE (ALI. SITES COMBINED).

FY'79 AVERAGE

QUARTERLY_UHIT

UNIT COST (IN

OF SERVICE

LARS)

1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR

WORK EXPERIENCE MM."MI EMI =MI IIIMIE i / /2.0

,1 ON-THE-JOB TRAINING

SKILL TRAINING I I I PRM

IIMMI

NEM MEM

MAE Mil

MPS II

11.ffli II EMI EMI

D

IMIPM Mal IMERIE

IMPF11

IIIIEM. NMI

-

/

, 111,11111

d

&d

a 4/0

3/e

EDUCATION. PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY , IIIMIEIME

IIMM

IMPM

MEM

/

WORK EXPERIENCE AND

SKILL TRAINING

WORK EXPERIENCE AND M

EDUCATION e407

WORK EXPERIENCE AND

PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE iJa

/4 .211/ ON- THE -JOB TRAINING AND SKILL TRAINING ONTHWOND EDUCATIONS

TRAINING AND

/

..47?

ONTHE.JOB TRAININ AND

PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXPEGRIENCE SKILL TRAINING AND

PRE - EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

/

4, SKILL TRAINING

AND EDUCATION W.__IA__

al

--gal_

_/

EDUCATION AND

PRE - EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE 4 sa

LIMITED SERVICES a

24 r)
202

It appears that the OJT related activities were more expensive although

this may reflect limitations in the estimating procedures. Work Experience

unit costs were low, probably due to its extensive use of in-school youth

who only worked part time at minimum wage. The unit cost for Work Experience

and Education, which served out-of-school youth, was considerably higher.

The lowest unit cost was that for Limited Services.

In summary, traditional patterns of expenditures were followed in the eight

demonstration sites during FY 1979.

C. Employability Plan and Record

and Service Agreements

Employability Plan and Records, as currently designed, suggest an approach

to serving youth that is little changed from the traditional approaches

used at these sites in FY 1979. The EPR has now been defined by the Office

of Youth Programs as a file rather than a specific document. At most sites

the information in this file will be more voluminous than in the past.

However, it does not appear to be more than a formalization of employability planning as it existed under categorical programs. It is instructive

that most Prime Sponsor and subrecipient staff feel that the EPR has meant

much more time devoted to paperwork, yet few feel that there will also be

positive benefits such as more individualized planning or better tracking.

Similarly, significant changes are usually accompanied by implementation

problems, yet few staff expect any problems, other than added paperwork,

as a result of the EPR.

Field observers were asked to collect samples of the forms to be included

in the EPR at each site and to review a small number of completed EPR's.
203

This was done in order to make a preliminary assessment of each Prime

Sponsor's approach to the EPR and to prepare for the sampling of FY 1980

youth participant records. The analysis of the sampled records should

provide a much fuller picture of the employability development process

at each site; the data at hand, however, is sufficient to identify

issues to be explored in greater depth as the evaluation proceeds.

At some sites, Prime Sponsors have sole responsibility for preparing and

maintaining EPR's; at some sites, both functions have been delegate-.! to

subrecipients. At other sites, either some subrecipients are responsible

for EPR's while others are not, or subrecipients are responsible for only

portions of the EPR. Most sites have duplicate files of at least parts of

the EPR in Prime Sponsor and subrecipient offices, but there are not

necessarily complete files at any single location.

One purpose of the EPR is to provide data on participants' characteristics

and needs, activities and outcomes, for use in program planning. To the

extent that complete files are not maintained in a single location, using

the EPR as a tool for program planning will probably be a cumbersome and

difficult process.

Delegation of responsibility for EPR's introduces problems of quality

control and makes a consistent approach to the use of the EPR more difficult to achieve. Tracking participant's progress through an employability

development plan calling for a number of units of service over a span of

several years will also be very difficult to the extent that Prime Sponsors

do not maintain complete EPR's or do not determine the unit of service in

which a youth is to be enrolled. As the process evaluation proceeds, of

particular interest will be the procedures which Prime Sponsors establish for

revising EPR's and moving participants from one unit of service to another.

2.4

A
204

At most sites, it appears that EPR's, like the EDP's which they replace,

facilitate an approach to employability development according to which:

Only one unit of service at a time is planned

Planning is restricted to what is provided by CYEP

Assessment, goals and activities are not explicitly

linked

Employability development is only loosely tied to

performance standards, certifications or

credential ling.

At all but one site, each participant's goals are recorded and at four

of the eight sites the steps to achieve those goals are listed or summarized

in narrative form. It cannot yet be determined whether even for these four

sites the steps are sequences of activities planned in advance. The prevailing practice seems to be that youth are assigned to a unit of service

and the next step is not contemplated until the first has been completed.

For the majority of current participants, enrollment in an activity preceded

rather than followed the development of an employability development plan,

although this may only have been a temporary expedient necessary for rapid

implementation of CYEP. At one site, no long or short-range goals are

recorded in the participant's EPR.

At five sites, the formats of documents in the EPR suggest that any

steps outlined to achieve goals will be only those provided by CYEP,

that Service Agreements will be written only with the Prime Sponsor or

CYEP subrecipients and that there will be no formal identification or

tracking of services provided by non-CETA organizations. At at least

one site, even if it is known that a participant is receiving services

from a related agency, this will not be recorded in the EPR. EPR's at
205

three sites do indicate that the Prime Sponsor plans to integrate non-CETA

resources in employability development planning by making referrals to,

tracking services provided by, and establishing Service Agreements with,

non-CETA agencies.

EPR's contain information on participant's background and interests,

assessment results, goals and activities. At six sites, however, the

links between these are not explicit. It cannot yet be determined

whether assessment, goal setting and activity planning take place as

aspects of a single process or as three independent and perhaps unrelated processes. At at least one site, Prime Sponsor staff assess

the participant; subrecipient staff prepare the employability development plan, making the link between the two processes especially difficult.

At one site, EPR's do clearly link the participant's aptitudes and

interests to employment goals; at another site, goals are clearly linked

to activities.

Prime Sponsors' difficulties in developing program measures are reflected

in the incomplete incorporation of the concepts of performance standards,

certification and credentialling into the EPR. At present, one or more

of the following applies to all eight sites: (1) performance standards

are not identified, (2) certifications to be achieved or certification

criteria are not identified, (3) outcomes are defined only in terms of

completion/noncompletion, or (4) there is no apparent procedure for

determining and recording whether a performance standard or a certification has been achieved.
- 206 -

EPR's contain two key documents--the Service Agreement and a form variously

called the Employability Plan, EPR, EDP or similar title. At six of the

eight sites, Service Agreements are written for each unit of service and

provide more detailed timetables and descriptions of activities than is

included in the EDP. At two of these sites, however, while Service Agreements are written for each unit of service, the differentiation between

the EDP and the Service Agreement is not clear; much of ths. seol(:. information is included on both. At one other site, the Service Agreement is

not an agreement; rather it is a record of planned and actual service

dates and results by unit of service. At another site, a Service Agreement

covers multiple units of service. Expected and actual results are described

in narrative, but not necessarily by unit of service and activities are

not described.

D. Credentialling and Program Measurement

None of the eight CYEP demonstration sites had performance standards for

unitsof service or certification criteria in place as of December 1979.

One site has developed an overall framework or design for these measures,

however, and most of the sites have developed assumptions or definitions

that will provide a basis for the measures themselves.

Several sites are using a task force approach for developing program

measures. In some cases, subrecipients and/or advisory bodies are to be

actively involved. Generally, these task forces are just being formed

or are just beginning their work.
207

Prime Sponsors appear to be encountering a considerable amount of difficulty in the program measurement area. Common problems are:

Lack of clear distinctions among the levels of

measurement. The nature of performance standards

and certification criteria, their relationship

and at what level each type of measure should

be applied are undefined at several sites

Difficulty in determining what measures are

appropriate and meaningful in the "softer" areas

of Pre-Employment and Work Experience

Some discomfort at the Prime Sponsor or subrecipient level in establishing a system of

uniform standards. To some this appears to

be contrary to the individualized planning

concept underlying CYEP

Uncertainty about the willingness of educational

institutions and private employers to accept

or give credibility to CYEP program measures.

Links with established credentialling requirements for educational programs

have already been established by several Prime Sponsors. While plans are

being made to extend these linkages, Prime Sponsors are somewhat uncertain

about the outcome.

Overall, there appears to be a lack of consensus about how program measures

are to be applied under CYEP. This uncertainty, as well as some perceived

lack of expertise in developing these measures, is contributing to slow

progress. It appears that none of the demonstration sites will be able

to adhere to their original implementation schedules for program measures.

E. Administrative Changes Necessitated by CYEP

The first quarter of FY 1980 was too early in the CYEP implementation

process for any significant changes in administrative procedures to be
208

detected. The third quarterly report will focus more directly on this

area, based on Prime Sponsor's experiences in meeting CYEP reporting

requirements.

During the first quarter, widespread concern was in evidence about the

increased paperwork that was being generated by CYEP. This paperwork

was occurring at the subrecipeint and counselor level in EDP and Service

Agreement preparation as well as within central office MIS and fiscal

units Prime Sponsors with manual MIS systems are expected to have

difficulty in meeting deadlines for federal CYEP reports. One Prime

Sponsor which is converting to an automated system has not made the

progress that was originally anticipated.

A number of sites are planning to maintain EPR and Service Agreement

files at the subrecipient or local office level. These Prime Sponsors

may have the most difficulty in gaining timely access to participant

data for management purposes.

U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 326-61: