13312 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Vocational and Adult

Education

School-to-Work Opportunities Act;

State Implementation Grants

AGENCIES: Department of Labor and

Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed selection

criteria and a proposed definition of

administrative costs for School-to-Work

Opportunities State Implementation

Grants to be made in fiscal year 1995

and succeeding years.

SUMMARY: The Departments of Labor and

Education jointly propose selection

criteria to be used in evaluating

applications submitted under the

School-to-Work Opportunities State

Implementation Grant (State

Implementation Grants) competition in

fiscal year (FY) 1995 and succeeding

years, authorized under section 212 of

the School-to-Work Opportunities Act

of 1994 (the Act). State Implementation

Grants will enable States to implement

their plans for offering young Americans

access to programs designed to prepare

them for a first job in high-skill, highwage careers and for further education

and training. The Departments also

propose a definition for administrative

costs that would apply to State

Implementation Grants funded under

the Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Janet Moore, National

School-to-Work Office, 400 Virginia

Avenue, S.W., Suite 210, Washington,

D.C. 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janet Moore, National School-to-Work

Office (202) 401–3822 (this is not a tollfree number). Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time,

Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Departments of Labor and

Education intend to reserve funds

appropriated for FY 1995 under the

School-to-Work Opportunities Act of

1994 (the Act) (Pub. L. 103–239) for a

competition for State Implementation

Grants authorized under section 212 of

the Act. The Departments propose a

definition of administrative costs and

selection criteria that will be used in

evaluating applications submitted in

response to the FY 1995 State

Implementation Grant competition.

States are advised that applications for

State Implementation Grants must meet

all of the requirements in the Act. In

addition to applying the proposed

selection criteria during the review of

applications, the Departments will

evaluate applications utilizing the

considerations and approval criteria in

section 214 of the Act. The Departments

intend to apply the Department of Labor

regulations pertaining to enforcement

and administrative requirements for

grants in 29 CFR parts 33, 93, 95, 96, 97,

98 to this State Implementation Grant

competition.

Proposed Definition and Selection

Criteria

The Departments propose to apply the

definition of administrative costs and

the selection criteria in this notice to the

FY 1995 competition for State

Implementation Grants. Unless

modified, the definition and selection

criteria will be used for future State

Implementation Grants in succeeding

fiscal years. The Departments solicit

comments on the proposed definition

and selection criteria, and will

announce the final definition and

selection criteria in a notice in the

Federal Register after taking into

account the responses to this notice and

other considerations of the Departments.

Note: This notice of proposed selection

criteria does not solicit applications. A notice

inviting applications for School-to-Work

Opportunities State Implementation Grants

will be published in the Federal Register

concurrent with or immediately following

publication of the notice of final selection

criteria.

Definition

All definitions in the Act apply to

School-to-Work Opportunities systems

funded under this and future State

Implementation Grant competitions.

The Act does not contain a definition of

‘‘administrative costs’’ as used in

section 217 of the Act. The Departments

propose that the following definition be

applied to this and future competitions

for State Implementation Grants:

The term ‘‘administrative costs’’

means the activities of a State or local

partnership that are necessary for the

proper and efficient performance of its

duties under the School-to-Work

Opportunities Act and that are not

directly related to the provision of

services to participants or otherwise

allocable to the program’s allowable

activities listed in section 214(b) (4) and

(5) and section 215(c) of the Act.

Administrative costs may be both

personnel and non-personnel, and

direct and indirect. Costs of

administration shall include, but not be

limited, to:

A. Costs of salaries, wages, and

related costs of the grantee’s staff

engaged in:

• Overall system management, system

coordination, and general

administrative functions;

• Preparing program plans, budgets,

and schedules, as well as applicable

amendments to them;

• Monitoring of local initiatives, pilot

projects, subrecipients, and related

systems and processes;

• Procurement activities, including

the award of specific subgrants,

contracts, and purchase orders;

• Providing State or local officials

and the general public with information

about the initiative (public relations);

• Developing systems and

procedures, including management

information systems, for assuring

compliance with the requirements

under the Act;

• Preparing reports and other

documents related to the Act;

• Coordinating the resolution of audit

findings;

• Evaluating system results against

stated objectives;

• Performing administrative services;

B. Costs for goods and services

required for administration of the

system;

C. Costs of system-wide management

functions; and

D. Travel costs incurred for official

business in carrying out grant

management or administrative

activities.

Selection Criteria

Selection Criterion 1: Comprehensive

Statewide System

Points: 35.

Considerations: In applying this

criterion, reviewers will consider:

A. 20 points. The extent to which the

State has designed a comprehensive

statewide School-to-Work Opportunities

plan that——

• Includes effective strategies for

integrating school-based and workbased learning, integrating academic

and vocational education, and

establishing linkages between secondary

and postsecondary education;

• Is likely to produce systemic change

in the way youth are educated and

prepared for work and for further

education, across all geographic areas of

the State, including urban and rural
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices 13313

areas, within a reasonable period of

time.

• Includes strategic plans for

effectively aligning other statewide

priorities, such as education reform,

economic development, and workforce

development into a comprehensive

system that includes the School-to-Work

Opportunities system and supports its

implementation at all levels—State,

regional and local;

• Ensures all students will have a

range of options, including options for

higher education, additional training

and employment in high-skill, highwage jobs; and

• Ensures coordination and

integration with existing local education

and training programs and resources,

including those School-to-Work

Opportunities systems established

through local partnership grants and

Urban/Rural Opportunities grants

funded under Title III of the School-toWork Opportunities Act, and related

Federal, State, and local programs.

B. 15 points. The extent to which the

State plan demonstrates the State’s

capability to achieve the statutory

requirements and to effectively put in

place the system components in Title I

of the School-to-Work Opportunities

Act, including——

• The work-based learning

component that includes the statutory

mandatory activities and that

contributes to the transformation of

workplaces into active learning

components of the education system

through an array of learning

experiences, such as mentoring, jobshadowing, unpaid work experiences,

school-based enterprises, and paid work

experiences;

• The school-based learning

component that will provide students

with high level academic skills

consistent with academic standards that

the State establishes for all students,

including, where applicable, standards

established under the Goals 2000:

Educate America Act;

• A connecting activities component

to provide a functional link between

students’ school and work activities and

employers and educators; and

• A plan for an effective process for

assessing students’ skills and issuing

portable skill certificates that are

benchmarked to high quality standards

such as those the State establishes under

the Goals 2000: Educate America Act,

and for periodically assessing and

collecting information on student

outcomes, as well as a realistic strategy

and timetable for implementing the

process.

Selection Criterion 2: Commitment of

Employers and Other Interested Parties

Points: 15.

Considerations: In applying this

criterion, reviewers will consider:

• The extent to which the State has

obtained the active involvement of

employers and other interested parties

critical to the success of the School-toWork Opportunities system, such as the

parties listed in section 213(d)(5) of the

Act, as well as State legislators.

• Whether the State plan

demonstrates an effective and

convincing strategy for continuing the

commitment of employers and other

interested parties in the statewide

system, such as the parties listed in

section 213(d)(5) of the Act, as well as

State legislators.

• The extent to which the State plan

proposes to include private sector

representatives as joint partners with

educators in the oversight and

governance of the overall School-toWork Opportunities system.

• The extent to which the State has

developed strategies to provide a range

of opportunities for employers to

participate in the design and

implementation of the School-to-Work

Opportunities system, including

membership on councils and

partnerships; assistance in setting

standards, designing curricula and

determining outcomes; providing

worksite experience for teachers;

helping to recruit other employers; and

providing worksite learning activities

for students, such as mentoring, job

shadowing, unpaid work experiences,

and paid work experiences.

Criterion 3: Participation of All Students

Points: 15.

Considerations: In applying this

criterion, reviewers will consider:

• The extent to which the State will

implement effective strategies and

systems to ensure that all students have

meaningful opportunities to participate

in School-to-Work Opportunities

programs.

• Whether the plan identifies

potential barriers to the participation of

any students, and the degree to which

the plan proposes effective ways of

overcoming these barriers.

• The degree to which the State has

developed realistic goals and methods

for assisting young women to participate

in School-to-Work Opportunities

programs leading to employment in

high-performance, high-paying jobs,

including nontraditional jobs.

• The feasibility and effectiveness of

the State’s strategy for serving students

from rural communities with low

population densities.

• The State’s methods for ensuring

safe and healthy work environments for

students.

Note: Experience with the FY 1994 Schoolto-Work Opportunities State Implementation

grant applications has shown that many

applicants do not give adequate attention to

designing programs that will serve school

dropouts and programs that will serve

students with disabilities. Therefore, the

Departments would like to remind applicants

that reviewers will consider whether an

application includes strategies to specifically

identify the barriers to participation of

dropouts and students with disabilities and

proposes specific methods for effectively

overcoming such barriers and for integrating

academic and vocational learning, integrating

work-based learning and school-based

learning, and linking secondary and

postsecondary education for dropouts and

students with disabilities. Applicants are

reminded that JTPA Title II funds may be

used to design and provide services to

students who meet the appropriate JTPA

eligibility criteria.

Selection Criteria 4: Stimulating and

Supporting Local School-to-Work

Opportunities Systems

Points: 15.

Considerations: In applying this

criterion, reviewers will consider:

• The extent to which the State

assists local entities to form and sustain

effective local partnerships serving

communities in all parts of the State.

• Whether the plan includes an

effective strategy for addressing the

specific labor market needs of localities

that will be implementing School-toWork systems.

• The effectiveness of the State’s

strategy for building the capacity of

local partnerships to design and

implement local School-to-Work

Opportunities systems that meet the

requirements of the School-to-Work

Opportunities Act.

• The extent to which the State will

provide a variety of assistance to local

partnerships, as well as the effectiveness

of the strategies proposed for providing

this assistance, including such services

as: developing model curricula and

innovative instructional methodologies,

expanding and improving career and

academic counseling services, and

assistance in the use of technologybased instructional techniques.

• The ability of the State to provide

constructive assistance to local

partnerships in identifying critical and

emerging industries and occupational

clusters.

Selection Criterion 5: Resources

Points: 10.

Considerations: In applying this

criterion, reviewers will consider:
13314 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices

• The amount and variety of other

Federal, State, and local resources the

State will commit to implementing its

School-to-Work Opportunities plan, as

well as the specific use of these funds,

including funds for JTPA Summer and

Year-Round Youth programs and

Perkins Act programs.

• The feasibility and effectiveness of

the State’s long-term strategy for using

other resources, including private sector

resources, to maintain the statewide

system when Federal resources under

the School-to-Work Opportunities Act

are no longer available.

• The extent to which the State is

able to limit administrative costs in

order to maximize the funds spent on

the delivery of services to students, as

required in section 214(b)(3) of the Act,

while ensuring the efficient

administration of the School-to-Work

Opportunities system.

Criterion 6: Management Plan

Points: 10.

Considerations: In applying this

criterion, reviewers will consider:

• The adequacy of the management

structure that the State purposes for the

School-to-Work Opportunities system.

• The extent to which the State’s

management plan anticipates barriers to

implementation and proposes effective

methods for addressing barriers as they

arise.

• Whether the plan includes feasible

measurable goals for the School-toWork-Opportunities system, based on

performance outcomes established

under section 402 of the Act, and an

effective method for collecting

information relevant to the State’s

progress in meeting its goals.

• Whether the plan includes a

regulatory scheduled process for

improving or redesigning the School-toWork Opportunities implementation

system based on performance outcomes

as established under section 402 of the

Act.

• Whether the plan includes a

feasible workplan for the School-toWork Opportunities system that

includes major planned objectives over

a five-year period.

Additional Priority Points

As required by section 214 of the Act,

the Departments will give priority to

applications that show the highest level

of concurrence among State partners

with the State plan, and to applications

that require paid, high quality workbased learning experiences as an

integral part of the School-to-Work

Opportunities system by assigning

additional points—above the 100 points

described in the criteria—as follows:

1. Highest Levels of Concurrence—5

Points

Up to 5 points will be awarded to

applications that can—

• Fully demonstrate that each of the

State partners listed in section 213(b)(4)

concurs with the State School-to-work

Opportunities plan, and that the State

partners’ concurrence is backed by a

commitment of time and resources to

implement the plan.

2. Paid, High-Quality Work-Based

Learning—10 Points

Up to 10 points will be awarded to

applications that demonstrate that the

State—

• Has developed effective plans for

requiring, to the maximum extent

feasible, paid, high-quality work

experience as an integral part of the

State’s School-to-Work Opportunities

system, and for offering the paid, highquality work experiences to the largest

number of participating students as is

feasible; and

• Has established methods for

ensuring consistently high quality workbased learning experiences across the

State.

Invitation to Comment: Interested

persons are invited to submit comments

on the proposed selection criteria and

the proposed definition of

administrative costs contained in this

notice. Interested persons are also

invited to comment on the Departments’

proposal that States be required to

submit their applications for new State

Implementation Grant awards within 30

days of the publication of a notice of

final selection criteria. The Departments

recognize that for the FY 1994 State

Implementation Grant competition they

provided applicants with 60 days in

which to submit their applications

following the publication of the notice

of final selection criteria and priorities.

However, the selection criteria

proposed for the FY 1995 State

Implementation Grant competition are

very similar to those that applied to the

FY 1994 competition and the States

have been actively engaged in the

planning of their School-to-work

Opportunities systems with State

Development Grant funds since initial

development grants were awarded in

early 1994. Accordingly, and in the

interest of designing an application

submission and review process that

enables the Departments to make FY

1995 awards in as timely a fashion as

possible, the Departments propose to

provide States with 30 days in which to

submit their applications for new FY

1995 State Implementation Grants.

Finally, under section 213(a)(2) of the

Act, where a Governor has been unable,

in accordance with section 213(d)(4) of

the Act, to obtain support for the State

plan from all of the individuals and

entities listed in 213(b)(4) (A) through

(J), the Governor must provide those

non-concurring individuals and entities

with a copy of the State’s final

application and provide those

individuals and entities with 30 days in

which to submit their comments on that

application. Under section 213(a)(2)(C)

of the Act, the governor must include

any such comments in the State’s

application. In order to adhere to these

statutory requirements while providing

the same application submission

deadlines and ensuring timely

application reviews for all States, the

Departments propose that a State submit

its final application simultaneously to

the Departments and to any of the

individuals and entities listed in section

213(b)(4) (A) through (J) who must be

given an opportunity to comment under

section 213(a)(2). Any comments

received as a result of this opportunity

will be provided to the Departments

immediately upon receipt of those

comments by the State, but no later than

30 days after the request for comments

is made by the Governor under section

213(a)(2)(B). Once all such comments

have been received, applications will be

considered to be complete.

All comments submitted in response

to this notice will be available for public

inspection, during and after the

comment period, in the National

School-to-Work Office, 400 Virginia

Avenue SW., Suit 210, Washington, DC,

between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4

p.m., Monday through Friday of each

week, except Federal holidays.

Intergovernmental Review

This program is subject to the

requirements of Executive Order 12372

and the regulations in 29 CFR Part 17.

The objective of the Executive Order is

to foster an intergovernmental

partnership and a strengthened

federalism by relying on processes

developed by State and local

governments for coordination and

review of proposed Federal financial

assistance.

In accordance with the order, this

document is intended to provide early

notification of the Departments’ specific

plans and actions for this program.

Applicable Regulations: 29 CFR parts

33, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices 13315

Dated: March 7, 1995.

Doug Ross,

Assistant Secretary for Employment and

Training, Department of Labor.

Augusta Kappner,

Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult

Education, Department of Education.

[FR Doc. 95–5922 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M